Re: 返: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

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": "",
>>    "type": "",
>>    "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.


Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 06:04:04 UTC