Re: schema.org post about JSON-LD from Dan Brickley on 2013-06-05 (public-rdf-wg@w3.org from June 2013)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 07:49:21 -0700
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFqbi+1VpjzCmRpbsSEgLVvi2oALSr6nkj-xMpqZtQe-Ow@mail.gmail.com>

On 4 June 2013 23:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would find it very depressing if schema.org went with JSON-LD instead of Turtle.  Why go to something that doesn't completely line up with RDF when there is finally a nice format for RDF?

In what ways does JSON-LD not line up fully with RDF?

For schema.org's current primary audience - Web developers and
publishers - they are all very heavily immersed in JSON these last few
years, to the extent they're doing anything more technical than basic
HTML/CSS.

Dan

Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 14:49:51 UTC