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

Re: Yet another serialization format?

From: David I. Lehn <dil@lehn.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:53:00 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTikGW+Y=f0BF9hcG8FNdWf4fKAM+iQ@mail.gmail.com>
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?

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 00:53:28 UTC

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