W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > July 2011

Re: JSON-LD requirements

From: Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:06:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKpM4LmcFsmC9+_xTAtQZqLrGpxGT6z=0xe9-7-L6c8hXNw3pg@mail.gmail.com>
To: glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Glenn-I'd like to ask that you be specific in stating your objections
to the points in section 3.1. In theory we can hack these out of the
various threads you've made statements in, but I think Gregg has been
responsive to the group in distilling the stance implicit in the
existing spec down to a focused list that can be approached
collaboratively and constructively. I myself am very sympathetic to
points made by yourself and Kingsley in re simplicity, but I am
looking forward to teasing apart what is and is not essential in
defing linked data towards the end of your second goal, starting with
the framing set forth by Gregg, RDF-centricity notwithstanding. -
regards, BPA

On Sunday, July 3, 2011, glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com> wrote:
&gt; Well, I object to all 11 of your Linked Data
&quot;requirements&quot; in one way or another, before you even get to
the JSON-LD derivations. I think they represent a very particular
RDF-centric implementation of an idea that can and should be much
simpler, and I'm with Kingsley in wanting to see the term &quot;Linked
Data&quot; separated from the RDF mechanics. As we've said before, the
question is what we're trying to accomplish here:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; - serialize RDF in JSON for the benefit of people who already
understand RDF but don't like the existing serializations for some
reason
&gt; or
&gt; - encourage wider use of un-deconstructed graph representations
of data by providing a simple serialization standard that takes
advantage of JSON familiarity to reach a much larger audience of
people who are motivated primarily by their own data and needs and
don't necessarily yet even consciously think about graphs, much less
understand RDF
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I don't see the point of the former, so if that's what this
&quot;community&quot; devolves into, I'll just unsubscribe. The
latter, on the other hand, seems to me like a hugely valuable and
important step that the *data* community should be trying to take.
&gt;
&gt;

-- 
Bradley P. Allen
http://bradleypallen.org
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 16:07:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:30 UTC