Re: What is the correct media-type for a Hydra specification?

hello kingsley.

On 2015-04-27 12:16, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> Loosely-coupling is dear to my heart (and many other individuals and
> enterprises) too. Thus, I hope we agree that conflation is antithetical
> to the cause? If so, then why do you still characterize RDF as a format?
> It isn't a format, that is simply inaccurate [1]. Characterizing RDF as
> a format is not a good example of loose-coupling.
> RDF is a Language, distinct from a variety of notations (RDF-XML,
> RDF-Turtle, JSON-LD etc..) that can be used to create document content.
> The aforementioned document content is serializable using a variety of
> formats (each identifiable using content-types).

sure, and i don't think we disagree on the substance at all. but i don't 
really know what you actually refer to because the email you quoted does 
not even contain the word "format".

but i don't think i ever questioned the fact that RDF is a metamodel, 
and that there are a variety of ways for how it can be represented.

that's no different than other metamodels that pretty much always follow 
the same pattern. for example, while XML initially specified both the 
metamodel and one representation, this has changed over the years and 
for all practical purposes the metamodel now is defined by the 
infoset/XDM, and possible representations of it are XML and EXI.

cheers,

dret.

ps: some rather old and incomplete overview: 
http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2009/08/data-models-metamodels-cosmologies.html

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |

Received on Monday, 27 April 2015 19:29:47 UTC