W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > November 2014

Re: Loosely-coupled (modular) LDP, was Re: Recharter scope

From: <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:38:15 +0100
Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <A24103A5-DF5C-4ECB-A7D5-16A09F748D09@bblfish.net>
To: "Kingsley (Uyi) Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

> On 18 Nov 2014, at 20:15, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> As for "No RDF dependency", this is exactly the type of bad argument
>> on the part of so called RESTafarians that we have to resist very strongly.
> Yes, because for some reason RDF is now locked in the "Data Format" realm.

You mean that is how some people have tried to paint it.

> How can we get folks to understand, and then ultimately accept the fact that RDF is a Language (system of signs, syntax, and semantics for encoding and decoding information) that's loosely associated with a variety of notations (mechanism for representing the words of a language)?

It was more difficult when the only format was RDF/XML with XML conseived of as 
the universal syntax. Now we have Turtle and JSON-LD (especially JSON-LD) this 
argument is petering out. I am happy to see that the  Social Web Working Group 
went for JSON-LD format for activity streams. So I think that the syntax 
confusion of RDF is dying out, and the advantages of RDF are starting
to be understood.

The tools are much better than they used to be also, so the main reasons
the plain REST folks had for being against RDF is going too. CPUs have also
dramatically increased in speed, and many other things have changed in the mean
time. So I think we can argue against the fudge that RDF is non RESTful and
be on solid ground with more people joining us at an ever faster rate.

I am just saying, let's not just give up on REST & RDF. The two are meant for
each other.


Social Web Architect
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2014 21:38:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:52 UTC