- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:03:35 -0400
- To: エリクソン トーレ <t-eriksson@so.taisho.co.jp>
- CC: 'Manu Sporny' <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 06/18/2013 01:42 AM, エリクソン トーレ wrote:
> One could argue that these examples, while not being RDF, still
> adhere to the RDF abstract syntax (triples describing typed directed
> relationships between resource).
But that's what RDF *is* -- the abstract syntax. RDF is syntax independent.
>
>> Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object):
>>
>> {
>> "id": "http://example.com/people/luca",
>> "type": "http://schema.org/Person",
>> "name": "Luca Matteis"
>> }
>>
>> The document above is interpreted as Linked Data using the following
>> rules:
>>
>> 1. The thing you're talking about is identified via 'id'.
>> 2. The type of the thing you're talking about is identified via 'type'.
>> 3. All keys, except for 'id' and 'type', are appended to 'type''s value,
>> with a '/' separator.
>>
>> That's Linked Data. It has no formal relationship to RDF.
>
> The three rules could be seen as a simple GRDDL-like specification.
> Applying them will give you a subset of RDF (no blank nodes?).
Except that they are not standards-based. :( So there is no way for a
client to reliably interpret them as RDF without some kind of
out-of-band or private information.
David
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 06:04:04 UTC