- From: Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>
- Date: 21 Sep 2014 21:55:31 +0200
- To: "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, "Evan Prodromou" <evan@e14n.com>
- Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org
henry.story@bblfish.net wrote: > It may not be in the charter that we need to build a vocabulary that is > applicable to multiple serialisations, > but it is a logical implication of creating a vocabulary for JSON-LD > that it will then allow the same information to be > provided with the same vocabulary using other syntaxes such as Turtle. That is not exactly true because the JSON-LD specification allows documents which are *not* RDF serialisations: "... JSON-LD is capable of serializing any RDF graph or dataset and most, but not all, JSON-LD documents can be directly interpreted as RDF as described in RDF 1.1 Concepts" http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#relationship-to-rdf I suggest that we require the specification produced by this WG to be restricted to the subset of JSON-LD which corresponds to RDF. Cheers, Andreas
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 19:55:57 UTC