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

Second official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 22:11:12 -0400
Message-ID: <520995C0.50700@digitalbazaar.com>
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:


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:


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:


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
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 02:11:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:36 UTC