W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > June 2016

Re: Data model spec okay for review

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 20:41:58 -0400
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <57673BD6.7060109@digitalbazaar.com>
On 06/18/2016 09:12 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> I'd like to note that if we were able to provide scope for other RDF 
> Serialization Formats without undue negative impacts; we might
> reduce pain-points (whilst potentially introducing others).
> Think mandatory json-ld optional Turtle, etc. --> might be another 
> way of doing it.

I'm concerned that if we bring up anything that doesn't at least look
like JSON that we're going to come under attack from those at W3C that
have a serious bone to pick w/ Linked Data.

> serialization seems a bit like religion at times.

Yes, which is why we're picking the most popular religions today -
WebIDL (browsers), JSON (just about everyone), JSON-LD (the Linked Data

If we were to throw TURTLE in there, the response from the browser
companies will most likely come in the form of formal objections.

To be fair, no one has said that TURTLE is a priority for them wrt.
Verifiable Claims.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
JSON-LD Best Practice: Context Caching
Received on Monday, 20 June 2016 00:42:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:53 UTC