Re: JSON-LD Requirements update

Kingsley, I'm not trying to be controversial; I just wanted feedback from the group on how to deal with a quote that contained something we didn't want; message received! I've updated the spec to remove the offensive phrase.

Gregg

On Aug 4, 2011, at 7:50 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 8/4/11 5:19 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> I could replace "using the standards (RDF*, SPARQL)" with "...", or just be revisionist and remove it entirely.
> 
> Please remove it entirely.
> 
> A day will come when I hope everyone will understand why this must be removed from both this spec. Ditto undoing the regressive tweak to the initial meme.
> 
> 
>> This is a statement about Linked Data from Tim, not about JSON-LD. Certainly, in our context, it doesn't (necessarily) relate to RDF.
> 
> The statement opens an unnecessary can of worms. What's wrong with actually have some peace in the realm of Linked Data?
> 
> I thought we were done with this JSON-LD matter.
> 
>> The alternative would be to just coin our own definition of Linked Data and not cite any references, or cite something else.
> 
> Then do that, you already actually have one. What's the problem?
>> I'm open to suggestions.
> 
> Suggestion provided :-)
> 
> Kingsley
>> Gregg
>> 
>> On Aug 4, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
>> 
>>> Alexandre Passant wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Gregg Kellogg<gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>  wrote:
>>>>> I made another pass at the Requirements document [1]. Easiest way to get a diff with previous is the CTRL-SHIFT-ALT-S key sequence. Note that I updated the Linked Data definition based on TBL's  note, which does include "using the standards (RDF*, SPARQL)". As it's a citation, I didn't think it appropriate to remove this, but I'm open to suggestions on how to include the citation without limiting it to RDF&  SPARQL.
>>>> You could add, from the same documents: "I'll refer to the steps above
>>>> as rules, but they are expectations of behavior.  Breaking them does
>>>> not destroy anything"
>>> That'll do! :)
>>> 
>>> side note.. it's worth remembering as well that JSON-LD isn't RDF or
>>> SPARQL, so anybody who read the spec and took the line to be a literal
>>> strict limitation would then have to abandon JSON-LD itself.
>>> 
>>> Which would be weird.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	
> President&  CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 5 August 2011 15:17:35 UTC