W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:07:24 -0400
Message-Id: <7024D553-6B69-4BBB-A7D9-89068C7889FA@3roundstones.com>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Hi Michael,

On Oct 18, 2012, at 7:27, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
> David,
> 
>> You may recall that the WG resolved to publish two of the JSON-LD docs (not all four), starting with FPWD at [1].
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
>> It would seem that your specific concerns regard marketing, not technology.  
> 
> It's about expectations, endorsement and agreement.
> 
> 
>> I'm sure that he can adjust the wording if needed, but threatening a formal objection on non-technical grounds seems counterproductive.  Instead, can you please suggest some alternative wording for the spec? 
> 
> I think I did clearly lay out the options that I see?

It would be more helpful to suggest specific wording, I think.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> Cheers,
>       Michael
> 
> --
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
> Ireland, Europe
> Tel.: +353 91 495730
> http://mhausenblas.info/
> 
> On 18 Oct 2012, at 12:20, David Wood wrote:
> 
>> Hi Michael and all,
>> 
>> You may recall that the WG resolved to publish two of the JSON-LD docs (not all four), starting with FPWD at [1].
>> 
>> It would seem that your specific concerns regard marketing, not technology.  Manu has already committed to "put a section on RDF in the spec" [2].  I'm sure that he can adjust the wording if needed, but threatening a formal objection on non-technical grounds seems counterproductive.  Instead, can you please suggest some alternative wording for the spec?  Thanks.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-07-11#resolution_1
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-06-20#line0268
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 18, 2012, at 4:57, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you, Manu - you beat me to it ;)
>>> 
>>> Just to clarify: this is not about the quality or the amount of work that went into JSON-LD. Neither do I want to discuss its usefulness. I acknowledge that there are use cases where JSON-LD certainly serves well.
>>> 
>>> ## Why, oh why?
>>> 
>>> We're faced with a situation ATM that the JSON-LD proponents talk with two different groups: on the one hand us here in the WG and on the other hand to potential adopters such as Drupal or WikiData. Towards the former group the  JSON-LD proponents keep maintaining that JSON-LD is in fact an RDF serialization. Towards the latter stake holders, the  JSON-LD proponents claim that JSON-LD has nothing to do with RDF.
>>> 
>>> You can't have the cake and eat it.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ## Options
>>> 
>>> Now, to break it down, I see two options:
>>> 
>>> 1. JSON-LD is indeed considered as an official RDF serialization by the  JSON-LD proponents. Then, JSON-LD has to follow the RDF model 100% - no more exceptions, no new terms, etc.
>>> 2. JSON-LD is not considered as an official RDF serialization by the  JSON-LD proponents, in which case I propose to stop continuing on the REC track in the RDF WG, effective immediately.
>>> 
>>> Again, it is unfortunate that this surfaces so late in the process but I was observing the JSON-LD development (in RDF WG land and outside) for a while now and was sort of - admittedly naïvely - hoping it would sort out by itself.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>>     Michael
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
>>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
>>> Ireland, Europe
>>> Tel.: +353 91 495730
>>> http://mhausenblas.info/
>>> 
>>> On 17 Oct 2012, at 20:18, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>>>>> (with my DERI AC rep and RDF WG member hat on) I will strongly
>>>>> advise the [RDF] WG to abandon REC track for JSON-LD.
>>>> 
>>>> The rest of the conversation is here:
>>>> 
>>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/102497386507936526460/posts/KCVJVLNZKNb?cfem=1
>>>> 
>>>> Bringing it to the groups attention so we're not blind-sided by it
>>>> during FTF3, LC or CR.
>>>> 
>>>> -- manu
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
>>>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>>> blog: HTML5 and RDFa 1.1
>>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2012/html5-and-rdfa/
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 12:07:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT