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: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:04:27 -0400
Message-ID: <5080D14B.4050403@gmail.com>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
CC: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I read over the LSON-LD syntax 1.0 editors draft of 16 Oct, and glanced at the 
one dated 18 Oct.

The technical issues are not as problematic as I had thought.  It appears that 
JSON-LD is quite close to RDF and that the differences can be fixed.

The presentation issues, however, are quite a bit worse that I had thought 
would be the case by now.  The draft of 16 Oct scarcely mentions RDF.  It 
restates a whole lot of the basic definitions of RDF, and even in ways that 
obscure the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF.  The draft of 18 Oct appears 
to be somewhat better, but not (yet) by much.

I state that the JSON-LD Syntax document MUST not only align with RDF but MUST 
also utilize the RDF definitions (particularly from RDF concepts).   The vague 
promises in the document are wholly inadequate; the change needs to happen 
well before last call, as it is a major change.

For example, LSON-LD MUST be stated as a way of writing down RDF graphs (with 
perhaps a simple generalization, although if linked data does not allow bnode 
properties then I see no reason to allow bnode properties in LSON-LD).   
JSON-LD nodes MUST be stated to be RDF nodes.  JSON-LD data values MUST be 
stated to be RDF literals and mention both plain and datayped literals.  JSON 
blank nodes MUST be stated to be RDF blank nodes.   All the JSON ordered 
constructs allowed in JSON-LD MUST be stated to be insignificant and there 
MUST be a test that tests this, or MUST have a translation into something in 
RDF that is ordered, and this translation should be prominent in the 
document.  Examples MUST be stated to be RDF, not linked data.

In essence, for JSON-LD to progress in the RDF WG, it should align to RDF, not 
linked data!  There should be many more occurrences of "RDF" than "linked 
data".  Consider the first bit of section 3.1 - it should say RDF in every 
numbered point, except, perhaps, the last.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 04:04:59 GMT

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