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

Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:05:06 +0100
Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4896E11E-4E37-4CCD-B717-A39E3C1CAC93@garlik.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
For what it's worth (and this is really off topic, especially for the RDF working group) I don't agree with this viewpoint at all.

IMHO if we don't define a lingua franca for Linked Data then we're wasting our time even discussing the idea of it. The situation is bad enough with RDFa, JSON-LD, GRDDL, POWDER, Ntriples, N3, Turtle, and RDF/XML - not to mention NQuads, TriG, and TriX - without bringing other data models into the equation as well.

http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data makes no mention of non-RDF stack languages.

- Steve

On 2012-10-22, at 14:03, Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> 
> If it can be sent over HTTP, and can express hyperlinks in a standard way, and can express arbitrary attribute-value pairs in a standard way, then it can do Linked Data.
> 
> Best,
> Richard
> 
> 
> On 22 Oct 2012, at 12:03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
+44 7854 417 874  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
80 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 5JL
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 15:05:37 GMT

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