- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:20:49 -0400
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- CC: Luca Matteis <lmatteis@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Hi Jeff, I guess I could have said *concrete*-syntax-independent to be more precise -- to distinguish it from the *abstract* syntax (or model) -- but "serialization-independent" works too. Or "format-independent". David On 06/19/2013 09:55 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote: > David, > > I think you've confused syntax-independence with > serialization-independence. RDF is syntax-dependent. The syntax is > triples. OTOH, triple syntax can be serialized in a wide variety of > ways. > > Jeff > >> -----Original Message----- From: David Booth >> [mailto:david@dbooth.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:42 PM >> To: Luca Matteis Cc: Kingsley Idehen; Linked Data community >> Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF >> >> >>>> Can you please then setup a pool asking "Does creating and >>>> publishing Linked Data require knowledge of RDF?" >> >> I would be willing to make such a poll if it seemed that people >> wanted it, but I don't think it is necessary. There are *many* >> document formats that can carry RDF, and it seems self-evident that >> someone who publishes an RDF-interpretable format like JSON-LD or >> (GRDDL-enabled) XML may not understand RDF **at all**. This is one >> of the great benefits of RDF being syntax independent. The JSON-LD >> group understood this very well and did a great job crafting the >> JSON-LD spec to ensure that web developers would *not* have to >> understand RDF in order to happily publish their JSON-LD. >> >> If the data is *interpretable* as RDF, then who cares whether the >> publisher understood RDF? It seems irrelevant to me. >> >> David >> > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 02:21:17 UTC