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

Re: JSON-LD bnode canonical naming algorithm

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 10:48:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4DFE0C22.2020801@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 06/19/2011 06:58 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/19/11 2:42 AM, glenn mcdonald wrote:
>> I think the "JSON" part of "JSON-LD" is pretty clear, but the
>> "LD" part is manifestly not. What is its audience? What are its goals?
>> How does it relate to RDF?
> I would add, and I think this is critical, how does this relate to
> Linked Data. Note, in this case Linked Data is something achievable
> using RDF and a variety of other syntaxes.
> Linked Data is about Identifiers that resolve to Referent
> Representations. These Representations take the form of EAV/SPO graph
> pictorials. Thus, as stated repeatedly, RDF isn't the sole option, so
> when we speak about Linked Data goals RDF is ultimately orthogonal, at
> best.

Agreed. To build on what Kingsley is saying, I would expect many people
to use JSON-LD as-is. That is, it won't be converted to RDF, but rather
used as JSON either as a native JSON object or dictionary or hashtable.
The option to convert to RDF is always there if people want to map it to
the more traditional Semantic Web, but the key here is what Kingsley
outlines above.

Therefore, if your Linked Data originally came in the form of CSV, EAV,
SPO, Microformats, Microdata, RDFa, TURTLE, etc. - it can be represented
in JSON-LD. This is true today with the current JSON-LD specification.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 14:48:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:29 UTC