Re: JSON-LD graph should be an RDF graph

Hi Markus,

Sorry I didn't see the more recent version.  I've now looked at this 
version:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/index.html
and I see that there is a section C "Relationship to RDF".

Consequently I hereby revoke my comment below.  I will send a separate 
message with a different comment.

Thanks,
David

On 02/26/2013 05:58 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback David. However, if I recall correctly, we were
> explicitly instructed to make those changes. The reasoning was to introduce
> explicit terminology for JSON-LD since the data model is not exactly the
> same. That's also the reason why we now have a detailed data model section.
>
> Btw. the version you were looking at is more than half a year old. You
> should either look directly at
>
>    http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/
>
> or at the latest time-stamped version which is
>
>    http://json-ld.org/spec/FCGS/json-ld-syntax/20130222/
>
>
>> Appendix B suggests that JSON-LD is intended
>> to be an RDF format, but this should be stated explicitly in the
>> definition.
>
> Where exactly would you like to see that statement being made?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Markus
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Booth [mailto:david@dbooth.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 11:25 PM
>> To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
>> Subject: JSON-LD graph should be an RDF graph
>>
>> A comment on
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-json-ld-syntax-20120712/
>>
>> The definition of "Linked Data" does not say that a linked data graph
>> is
>> an RDF graph.  I think it is important to state explicitly that a
>> linked
>> data graph is an RDF graph.  Otherwise JSON-LD would be a competitor to
>> RDF (since both are used to represent directed graphs) but without
>> being
>> grounded on RDF semantics.  Appendix B suggests that JSON-LD is
>> intended
>> to be an RDF format, but this should be stated explicitly in the
>> definition.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 03:45:35 UTC