Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

On 10/18/12 8:12 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
> Lee,
>
>> >I've read this thread, the quora question, and the G+ thread and still don't really understand what you'd be objecting to, Michael. Could you clarify? Are you objecting to the use of WG resources on this effort? Are you objecting to the branding of JSON-LD as an RDF serialization? Are you objecting to the fact that it's being produced by the RDF WG and not some other group?
> At the current point in time a FO is certainly not in order as the process doesn't allow it, so let's not go there. As you've read both the G+ and the Quora thread you may have noticed that I personally have never used the term FO. Manu introduced it (maybe intentionally to draw attention to it?) ...
>
> What I want is that either JSON-LD is indeed officially acknowledged as an RDF serialization or, if the JSON-LD proponents think RDF is not suitable, then stop working on it as an RDF WG deliverable.
>
> 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/

All,

Does the RDF and EAV thread [1] from a while back at least provide some 
beachead for resolving this matter?

We are still struggling with loose coupling of:

1. RDF the data model -- a variant of EAV with explicit (rather than 
implicit) entity relationship semantics
2. Markup Languages -- various syntaxes
3. Linked Data -- a combined use of de-referencable URIs and the EAV or 
RDF models for addressing Web-scale interoperable data representation, 
access, and integration.

I believe JSON-LD is trying to address #2. Unfortunately, RDF syntax and 
semantics (which are loosely coupled) eventually gets in the way, once 
Linked Data and RDF are conflated. On one front there's a strange 
insecurity about RDF, on another front there's a strange deference to 
RDF arising from the politically induced osmotic pull of the 
aforementioned insecurity.

All folks really want is loosely coupled interoperability that scales to 
the Web. This is an achievable goal if we can just put the pieces 
together the right way i.e., accept that the Web works because its 
components are loosely coupled.

Putting RDF in the right box doesn't mean RDF is bad. Loosely coupling 
Linked Data and RDF is mutually beneficial, since alternative approaches 
(i.e., conflation) have failed and will continue to fail. And by failure 
I mean: the prevalence of eternal confusion where there should be 
simplicity, consistency, and comprehension re., specs, narratives, and 
implementations.

Links:

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Sep/0003.html 
-- framing RDF, EAV, and Linked Data in a much less FUD friendly way.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen