- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:02:41 -0500
- To: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- CC: JSON-LD CG <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 02/24/2013 11:41 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > I just note that your blog goes beyond what we discussed last time. > The text of the blog suggests that you want to reopen *again* the > predicate-not-being-bnode issues as well, not only the > blank-node-as-graph-name. I thought that issue was already discussed > before, and I am not amused getting it again on the agenda. I didn't ask for bnodes-as-predicates to be re-opened. I didn't ask for it to be put on the Agenda. I'm just trying to clearly explain the concerns via the blog post. bnodes-as-predicates has been a feature in the JSON-LD data model from the very early days, nothing has changed there. I don't expect anything in RDF 1.1 Concepts to change at this point. I don't expect that the half-baked solution presented in the blog post will need more than a quick response from the RDF WG stating that nobody in this group intends to block JSON-LD at LC due to the proposed solution. > It seems that you have an approach that works for your problem, even > if you do not like it. It's not only that I don't like it, it's that it is damaging to RDF, but may be at an acceptable level of harm to those in the group. > in my view we should take the suboptimal solution and move on. That would be fine with me, I just need folks to focus on the suboptimal solution and give feedback on whether they would block JSON-LD from going to LC based on that proposal. The suboptimal solution doesn't require the RDF WG to revisit any past decisions it has made since it's supposed to be compatible with the RDF 1.1 specifications as-is. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals http://manu.sporny.org/2013/payswarm-journals/
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2013 19:03:36 UTC