- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:52:54 -0500
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4F0CA526.5080607@openlinksw.com>
On 1/10/12 3:33 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > Thanks for noticing this. I'm preparing the specs to be time-stamped later today, as there's been quite a bit of change since the last version was announced. I went through the syntax document and remove quite a few references to RDF, really trying to leave that to the API document. Of course, there is some reference to formats such as RDFa, Microformats and microdata, but this seems relevant to the desired audience. > > The only other real mention is in the advanced-concepts section on prefixes, and even there only to reference the CURIE definition. > > I really don't want people to get hung up on the ability to use JSON-LD for RDF, but focus on JSON-LD as an end in itself. If you might take another pass. > > Moving the Linked Data section to an appendix might also help the readability, I've also done that. Yes, but I would encourage you to do the same re. JSON-LD for RDF, that too should go to the appendix. Remember, Linked Data != RDF, so it should be the scape goat re. this RDF colonization problem :-) Kingsley > > Gregg > > On Jan 10, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > >> On 1/10/12 9:55 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: >>>> It's the narrative itself, the problem is that from the Semantic Web >>>> and >>>> W3C side of things an EAV based directed graph that leverages URIs == >>>> RDF. Thus, even when speaking of the aforementioned model (no syntax in >>>> mind) they say: RDF. The biggest problem is that when people outside of >>>> the Semantic Web and W3C encounter the letters R-D-F they triangulate >>>> straight to the RDF/XML and all of its problems. >>>> >>>> It's a nightmare, to put things mildly :-( >>> Maybe moving the theoretical Linked Data definition [1] towards the end of >>> the spec and describing the data model based on object oriented programming >>> where pointers are IRIs would help to improve the situation slightly. What >>> do you think? >>> >>> >>> [1] http://www.json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#linked-data >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Markus Lanthaler >>> @markuslanthaler >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Markus, >> >> Linked Data isn't the problem, good effort was put into ensuring the Linked Data == RDF misinformation didn't overshadow JSON-LD. As per usual, the problem is more complex. >> >> Proof: >> >> 1. open up the json-ld spec page (your URL above) >> 2. CTRL-F to perform a search and count of occurrences for pattern: RDF, you get 67 ! >> >> Look at the opening paragraph. "RDF" has colonized the blurb-space of this spec, in a nutshell. It's the effects of said colonization that leads people outside the Semantic Web and Linked Data communities to these frustrating conclusions that you've encountered :-( >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Kingsley Idehen >> Founder& CEO >> OpenLink Software >> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com >> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen >> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about >> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 20:55:47 UTC