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

Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:48:06 -0400
Message-ID: <50841936.5080800@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 10/20/2012 01:36 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>> 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.

The JSON-LD CG has put in a tremendous amount of thought into these two
sentences. We did so before Peter and you raised the concern. We're now
revisiting the issue again since you two re-raised the concern. In fact,
it was the very first issue we discussed.

https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/1
http://json-ld.org/minutes/2011-07-26/

The set of definitions are not direct parallels to one another. The
JSON-LD data model isn't a direct parallel to the RDF data model. The
JSON-LD data model is more forgiving. Look at Section "3.1 JSON-LD Data
Model". You will notice that there isn't a single MUST in there. RDF has
a number of MUSTs in the data model. More here:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Oct/0137.html

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Problem with RDF and Nuclear Power
http://manu.sporny.org/2012/nuclear-rdf/
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2012 15:48:34 GMT

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