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 15:46:02 +0100
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <87852D52-0E02-452F-B28D-FEC98971FC17@deri.org>
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>


> 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.

Thank you, Peter. Finally someone who is able to express properly what I wanted to get at in the first place ;)

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 15:02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 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 14:47:52 GMT

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