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

RE: JSON-LD should be an RDF syntax

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:03:51 +0100
To: "'David Booth'" <david@dbooth.org>, <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00ee01ce15a3$4be5b180$e3b11480$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
David,

I created ISSUE-222 to keep track of your feedback:

https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/222


Cheers,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler




> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:david@dbooth.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 5:38 AM
> To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Subject: JSON-LD should be an RDF syntax
> 
> These are comments on
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/spec/latest/json-ld-
> syntax/index.html#relationship-to-rdf
> 
> 1. JSON-LD should be an RDF syntax, just as Turtle is an RDF syntax.
> This means: (a) it should define the *same* data model as RDF -- not a
> superset; and (b) it should have the same semantics as RDF serialized
> in
> any other syntax.
> 
> It does not make sense for the W3C to define splinter the RDF market by
> defining a competing data model that is so similar to RDF and fills the
> same needs.  Section C 'Relationship to RDF' makes clear that JSON-LD
> defines a *different* graph model than RDF: "The RDF data model, as
> outlined in [RDF-CONCEPTS], is an abstract syntax for representing a
> directed graph of information. It is a subset of JSON-LD's data model".
> 
> If the long-term plan for RDF is that it will eventually embrace the
> additional features of JSON-LD (such as blank nodes as graph names,
> blank nodes as properties) then the RDF specification itself (and the
> SPARQL specification?) should be changed NOW to be consistent with
> JSON-LD,.
> 
> 2. A JSON serialization of RDF should not require IRIs to be
> dereferenceable -- even with a "SHOULD" requirement as currently
> stated:
> [[
> IRIs used within a JSON-LD graph should return a Linked Data document
> describing the resource denoted by that IRI when being dereferenced.
> ]]
> 
> Fundamentally this specification should be defining JSON-RDF -- not
> JSON-LD.  There are many RDF applications that are not Linked Data
> applications but would nonetheless benefit from a JSON serialization of
> RDF.
> 
> However, it would be good to define JSON-LD on *top* of JSON-RDF, once
> JSON-RDF is defined.
> 
> David
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 11:04:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:31 UTC