[RESOLVED] Re: Second official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment

I am satisfied with this resolution.  You guys did a great job.


On 08/12/2013 10:11 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> 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

Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 01:47:48 UTC