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: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 06:36:33 +0100
Message-Id: <4FB8BDF4-9DAE-4F78-B797-4897B834D35B@deri.org>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

> 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.

Exactly. Peter seems to be very good at making the things that worry me very clear and explicit ;) 

I wish Manu would take a minute now and think about these two sentences. This is the core of the issue, which I have - admittedly - failed to communicate.

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 20 Oct 2012, at 05:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 
> 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 05:37:01 GMT

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