- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:11:12 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- CC: RDF WG Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi David, Peter, This is the second official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment, which is being tracked here: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/132 As both of you already know, we had attempted to address a series of issues reported by both of you regarding the misalignment of JSON-LD with the RDF data model. The first official response of the attempt to address your concerns can be found here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013May/0154.html David responded to that issue stating that we had no addressed all of the issues and Peter added support to some of David's claims that JSON-LD needed to be brought in line with the RDF data model. We had a number of on-list and telecon discussions with both of you related to the general RDF data model alignment concerns: http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-06-11/#topic-4 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-06-11/#topic-5 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-06-11/#topic-6 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-06-11/#topic-7 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-06-18/#topic-1 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-06-18/#topic-2 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-06-25/#topic-1 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-07-02/#topic-3 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-07-09/#topic-1 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-07-09/#topic-2 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-07-09/#topic-3 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-07-16/#topic-1 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-07-16/#topic-3 http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-08-06/#resolution-2 While the details of all of those discussions are too gory to go into in this e-mail, here is a summary of the changes made to the specification as a result: 1. The definition of Linked Data was removed from the specification and replaced with looser, but accurate, language. 2. Mentions of the "JSON-LD data model" was removed in favor of just talking about the data model, which is RDF. 3. The default serialization of RDF in JSON-LD is 100% compliant with the RDF data model explained in RDF Concepts 1.1. A non-standard serialization to "generalized RDF" is also allowed if API consumers want to use blank node properties. 4. A number of editorial changes to make the rest of the specification text align with the discussions and resolutions above. We believe that the result of those discussions led to significant specification changes that address the issues both of you raised to your satisfaction. To be clear, they're not the ideal outcome, but they are a good compromise given the varying viewpoints going into the specification. Please respond to this e-mail and let us know if this response is acceptable to you. If the responses are not acceptable and you want to pursue the issues further, please make specific suggestions about the types of changes that you would like to see made to the specs. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Meritora - Web payments commercial launch http://blog.meritora.com/launch/
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 02:11:44 UTC