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

Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:14:49 +0100
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EC4B1750-8E88-446C-AF48-FBEECDCD6C2C@deri.org>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>

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

Can I first ask for a clarification from the JSON-LD proponents, first and foremost from Manu. This certainly helps reducing the workload of everyone involved. I really want to know where they stand before I can come up with any concrete PROPOSAL.

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 13:07, David Wood wrote:

> 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 12:15:25 GMT

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