W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > April 2013

Re: JSON-LD should be an RDF syntax

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:27:25 +0100
Message-ID: <517E753D.90105@webr3.org>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
David Wood wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2013, at 9:06, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Over extending what RDF is remains its ultimate problem. RDF doesn't
>>> have to cloud the definition of everything in order for it to be useful :-)
>> That's directly backwards.  What's clouding the definition is *not* RDF, but the attempt to redefine the term "Linked Data" to mean something different than what it was specifically coined to mean:
>> http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data
>> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
> 
> Yes, agreed. Linked Data builds on RDF and not the reverse. That's why I said that it is fine with me that JSON-LD says "Linked Data" and not RDF. 
> 
> I am sympathetic to those wishing to broaden the serializations and use of the RDF data model but not to those wishing to include (e.g.) Excel under Linked Data. 

It's all a little moot, Linked Data has a 5-star Rating, many people 
want to argue that only 5-star is real "Linked Data", but 1,2,3,4-star 
is also Linked Data by definition. The inclusion of stars makes it 
ambiguous.

So as with all ambiguous definitions, this can be debated for another 10 
years without it having any bearing on anything. It's the debating of 
these things which muddies the waters, not the ambiguity itself.

Best, Nathan
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 13:28:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:32 UTC