Re: JSON-LD and its relationship to RDF

Hi Peter,

Thanks for clarifying your position.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:06, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> Things have finally improved somewhat just last evening, but there was quite a bit of push-back on giving any significant place to RDF in the documents.
> 
> It may be that the documents have finally reached a minimally-acceptable state, but that's about all the positive I can say about them.  That's certainly not a ringing endorsement, and maybe not enough to even get a non-negative vote from me.  It's also not enough to make me happy with the way the documents are going, not even the minimal happiness that is just about all you can expect from a standardization effort.
> 
> The discussion of implementations and what they mean for JSON-LD also did not go over very well with me, nor did the tone of the discussion.  I had very much hoped that the normal W3C decorum would have been observed from the JSON-LD side.
> 
> If the situation with JSON-LD causes even minor problems for the other deliverables of the RDF WG, I would vote to ditch JSON-LD in an instant, even though I am excited to have a JSON serialization for RDF.
> 
> peter
> 
> On 06/13/2013 05:25 AM, David Wood wrote:
>> Thanks, Peter. Noted and understood.
>> 
>> I am surprised, though, at your comment that you are unhappy with where the docs are headed. Others, including me, see improvement.  Can you specify particular areas of concern?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> --
>> http://about.me/david_wood
>> 
>> 
>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 2:56, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I have been staying out of the heated discussion on JSON-LD partly because it is happening on public-rdf-comments.
>>> 
>>> This does not mean that I am not interested in the discussion.
>>> 
>>> It also does not mean that I am happy with the current state of the JSON-LD documents.
>>> 
>>> It also does not mean that I am happy with the direction that the JSON-LD documents are heading in.
>>> 
>>> I am pretty sure that my thoughts on this matter are on record in the WG archives.  (On JSON-LD - if JSON-LD is to be a product of the RDF WG then it must have a very close relationship to RDF, both in actuality and, perhaps more importantly, in description.  On documents - defining documents are to be written to be precise and to build on previous work, and not to be quick or easy reads nor stand-alone nor to hide relationships.)
>>> 
>>> peter
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>