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

Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:01:32 -0400
Message-ID: <5081876C.3000303@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 10/19/12 10:43 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> There should be many more occurrences of "RDF" than "linked data".
> Number of times 'RDF' is mentioned in the spec: 59
> Number of times 'linked data' is mentioned    : 30
>
> Although, this is a bad metric for any spec, imho.
>
Bad metric for something called JSON-LD.

Acceptable metric for something called JSON-RDF+LD or something like that.

"Big Elephant in the room" is still the fact that we instinctively 
conflate RDF (data model, structured data representation, URI based 
entity denotation, and *explicit* entity relationship semantics) and 
Linked Data (data model, structured data representation, 
*de-referencable* URI based entity denotation,  and *implicit* or 
*explicit* entity relationship semantics).

All we have to do is get terminology right modulo politically induced 
insecurities re. RDF.

Once again, RDF and Linked Data are loosely coupled and individually 
useful. Once you conflate them everything falls apart and both suffer.


The Web succeeds because it has loose coupling at its core. Deviate from 
the essence of the Web's loosely coupled architecture and it all falls 
apart, predictably.


-- 

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







Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 17:01:55 GMT

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