W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 22:20:49 -0400
Message-ID: <51C26701.6060308@dbooth.org>
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".


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:37 UTC