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

Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:02:23 +0100
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <717EEC5B-F443-4736-B3D2-BCB45ADA5E46@cyganiak.de>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Pat,

On 22 Oct 2012, at 04:59, Pat Hayes wrote:
> I would be very interested to discover what y'all consider the be the definition of Linked Data. Can you provide a pointer to where this can be found? Thanks in advance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_Data

Trying to nail it down much tighter than that is counter-productive. I learned this the hard way a couple of years ago, when foolishly trying to stop people who were “doing Linked Data with Atom” from using the LD term.

One can obviously do Linked Data with RDF, and that's by far the most popular approach. RDF is well-suited to that task, and it's the community where the LD term first emerged. W3C's LDP-WG is currently writing a specification that has more details for that.

JSON-LD is an attempt at creating a format that allows doing Linked Data with JSON. That's great. However, there's a thin line between saying “we enable LD with JSON” and “JSON-LD is how you do LD”. The JSON-LD spec really ought to say only the first thing, but slips into implying the second too often.

Attempting to enforce a particular implementation technology for Linked Data, be it RDF or JSON or Atom or Microdata or whatever, doesn't work. This is what Kingsley keeps repeating on a daily basis, and he's right.

The fact that a JSON-LD document also can be parsed to an RDF graph is mostly orthogonal to this.

Best,
Richard
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 10:03:06 GMT

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