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

Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:02:10 -0400
Message-ID: <50800BE2.4020603@gmail.com>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
There are two questions that I have continued to have about JSON-LD.

1/ Is JSON-LD a serialization syntax for all RDF graphs?
2/ Is JSON-LD only a serialization syntax for RDF graphs?

Could the interested parties state straight up their answers to these questions?


The opinions below are mine alone.  I have included them here to give some 
rationale as to why I want answers to the above questions to be on record.

If the answer to the second question is true, i.e., every JSON-LD structure 
corresponds to an RDF graph and there is no more information in the JSON-LD 
structure, then it is obvious to me that JSON-LD work should go forward in the 
RDF WG.

If the answer to the first question is true, i.e, every RDF graph can be 
written as a JSON-LD structure and recovered from that structure unchanged, 
but not the second, then the situation is somewhat murky.  It seems to me that 
there should be some convincing argument why the RDF WG is recommending 
something larger than RDF, and the more there is in JSON-LD (ordering, etc., 
etc.) the more convincing this argument has to be.  In this case it may be 
better to have some other status for the JSON-LD documents, or even for the 
RDF WG to simply point to the JSON-LD documents in one of its documents.

If neither are true, then I don't see any reason for the RDF WG be interested 
in JSON-LD.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 14:02:43 GMT

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