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

RE: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:10:59 +0200
To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "'David Wood'" <david@3roundstones.com>
Cc: "'Michael Hausenblas'" <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <014601cdae0b$f410fe00$dc32fa00$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Peter, all,

I just created ISSUE-168 (https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/168) to keep track of this.


Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 6:04 AM
> To: David Wood
> Cc: Michael Hausenblas; RDF WG
> Subject: Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD
> 
> 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 15:11:34 GMT

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