RE: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

My impression is that Kingsley is arguing that triples is triples. Concrete syntax is irrelevant, even if those triples are barely recognizable by naive agents. If that's what he's saying, I would agree. Converting barely recognizable triples into a standard form is a trivial process.

Jeff
________________________________________
From: David Booth
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:20:49 PM
To: Young,Jeff (OR)
Cc: Luca Matteis; Kingsley Idehen; Linked Data community
Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF

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 02:48:26 UTC