- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:04:49 +0200
- To: Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>
- CC: public-socialweb@w3.org
On 09/21/2014 09:55 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: > 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. Good point Andreas! But I doubt that we will find ourselves in situation when we need Generalized RDF Triples, Graphs, and Datasets * http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-generalized-rdf * http://manu.sporny.org/2013/rdf-identifiers/ I would propose not going there in our conversations unless we really have good reason for it...
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 20:07:05 UTC