- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:32:34 +0100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 23 Oct 2012, at 18:59, Manu Sporny wrote: > This also means that if this group decides to not publish JSON-LD as a > REC, that they'd have to come up with an alternate RDF/JSON mechanism to > achieve the charter requirement The WG could revive [1], which was abandoned/shelved quite some time ago in favour of seeing how JSON-LD turns out. Not advocating, just pointing out that there is an alternative that's already implemented and deployed in a couple of places. Best, Richard [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-json/index.html
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 19:33:04 UTC