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: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:03:47 -0400
Message-ID: <50852813.5010700@gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
So I could have reverse Polish notation 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation linked data? Or 
object-oriented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_database linked data? Or 
fuzzy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic linked data?  Or Montague 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_grammar linked data?  These are all 
standard in some sense.

There has to be some notion that everyone is serving up stuff that others can 
read.  Otherwise linked data is nothing more than a slogan.  But where is the 
boundary?  It seems to me that the boundary is triples, i.e., RDF.  What 
linked data adds is nothing more than pragmatics.  (Not that pragmatics isn't 
important.)

peter


On 10/22/2012 06:02 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 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 11:04:17 GMT

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