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: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:54:49 -0400
Message-ID: <50822E99.4030907@gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 10/19/2012 10:08 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2012, at 24:04 , Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> (My activity lead's hat put down)
> Without going into details, I think this may go a bit too far. I do understand the wish of the JSON-LD editors to use terminologies and presentations that are closer to the target audience of this document, who are primarily Web developers accessing RDF/Linked Data through their familiar JSON environment and who, for good or bad reasons, have some aversion v.a.v. core RDF. I agree that things should be aligned  but I think 'There should be many more occurrences of "RDF" than "linked data"' would lead to this document be ignored by many whom we like to attract as possible users.
> I would wait for the outcome of the work that Manu and Richard have signed up for working out the details for such alignments.
> I agree that this issue should be put behind us before going to official LC, though.
> ivan

The JSON-LD syntax document is supposed to define JSON-LD.  It is currently 
full of text and constructions that parallel RDF definitions and that do not 
defer to the RDF definitions.  Two parallel sets of definitions for one 
thing?  What could be the possible utility of this in a defining document?

Consider, for example, the first part of Section 3.1, which provides the bulk 
of the definitions underlying JSON-LD.  It doesn't materially reference 
anything from RDF, but instead nearly duplicates the bulk of RDF graphs.

Note that I have nothing against JSON-LD documents that introduce JSON-LD 
without saying anything about RDF at all.  However, if JSON-LD is supposed to 
be providing a serialization for RDF graphs that the RDF WG is going to 
endorse, then there is nothing good to say about a parallel set of definitions 
in the JSON-LD documents.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider

PS:  What in the world does "more semantics are added to the JSON markup" mean 
at the beginning of Section 3?
Received on Saturday, 20 October 2012 04:55:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:08 UTC