- From: Sven R. Kunze <sven.kunze@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:48:45 +0200
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, RDF WG Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Great +1 Thank you very much. On 08/13/2013 04:11 AM, 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 > -- Sven R. Kunze Technische Universität Chemnitz Department of Computer Science Distributed and Self-organizing Systems Group Straße der Nationen 62 D-09107 Chemnitz Germany E-Mail: sven.kunze@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de WWW: http://vsr.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/people/kunze Phone: +49 371 531 33882
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 09:49:11 UTC