- From: David I. Lehn <dil@lehn.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:53:00 -0400
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 6/27/11 6:41 PM, David I. Lehn wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen >> <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >>> >>> The day we separate RDF and the basic concept of Linked Data is the day >>> rapid adoption resumes. >>> >> "RDF" vs "Linked Data" with a bias against RDF has come up in many of >> your posts. > > Please, what do you mean by "bias against RDF" ? That's utterly false, and > if you don't know that to be the case, please provide an example. > >> Could you please explain your view on the differences and >> why you are against RDF? > ... > Let me rephrase. In the context of the JSON-LD discussion, which parts of RDF and Linked Data do you think should be included in a JSON-based spec, and which parts should be left out? -dave
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 00:53:28 UTC