- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:34:03 +0100
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 6/30/11 11:21 AM, Patrick Logan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:32 PM, Kingsley Idehen > <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> Why do you think RDF in anyway has a monopoly over semantics? Why do you >> think that an EAV/SPO triple serialized in a non RDF format somehow loses >> fidelity? Do you think RDFS and OWL semantics cannot be expressed in any >> other form outside RDF's family of syntaxes? > I never intended to imply RDF has a monopoly over semantics. The set > of RDF-related specs just have a widely adopted semantics I am > interested in. I am unaware of other specifications as widely adopted. So we are back to the question of whether: JSON-LD is about a solution for those who are happy with RDF? If it is, then what's wrong with the existing RDF/JSON syntax from Talis? We can't escape the fundamental questions: 1. what is JSON-LD? 2. why is it important? 3. who is it aimed at? 4. how will the target audience use it? > I am only interested in syntaxes as far as they are related to these > semantic specifications. If other syntactic and semantic > specifications are made known to me that are as useful for me, I will > consider those at such a time. See comment above. > -- 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 Thursday, 30 June 2011 10:34:39 UTC