Re: comments on JSON-LD 1.0, A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data

I think that the crux of my disagreement with the current state of the 
document can be summed up quite easily.

On 06/17/2013 06:16 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> ... while not scaring off people that don't have the time to learn the 
> entire RDF stack.

I don't view this as legitimate support for the current state of the 
document.  Sure, you can produce explanatory text in the document that means 
that almost all users don't have to read any of the RDF stack, but even if you 
did completely defer to external definitions and didn't provide much in the 
way of explanations of the definitions, most readers of the document would 
still not have to read any of the RDF stack, and practically all those who 
would need to read any of the RDF stack would have to read only parts of RDF 
Concepts.  This doesn't seem like much of a scary situation at all. And the 
document goes very much further than just having explanatory text paralleling 
text from the RDF documents and elsewhere.


As someone who is not much of a proponent for RDF, except in the fact that it 
exists, is used, and might be useful, my reading of the document comes up with 
the following relationship between JSON-LD and RDF:

There is no relationship between JSON-LD and RDF, or indeed between JSON-LD 
and anything previously produced by W3C.  If any such relationship exists it 
is only accidental.  If the relationship isn't accidental it is certainly not 
normative.



Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 02:59:21 UTC