Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment

Hi all,

(comments inline)

On 6/7/2013 1:55 AM, David Booth wrote:
>> Hopefully it is clear that the decision to leave "based on RDF" out of
>> the Linked Data definition was thoroughly and carefully considered. In
>> the end, the group decided not to tie RDF and Linked Data together
>> because it would be conflating a data publishing concept (Linked Data)
>> with an abstract data model (RDF).
>> In the end, the group decided against tightly coupling Linked Data and
>> RDF because:
>> 1. It would conflate two different concepts.
> It is extremely misleading to suggest that tightly coupling Linked Data
> and RDF "conflates" two different concepts, when the fact is that Linked
> Data -- in the established sense of the term -- is *based* on RDF.
> It is clear from reading the JSON-LD group's discussion log
> that the group wanted to avoid reference to RDF, and hence -- exceeding
> its authority -- the group invented a new definition for "Linked Data"
> to suit this purpose.  Some individuals even appear to have convinced
> themselves that this new definition is the *real* definition of the
> term!  It is not.
> The term "Linked Data" has a well-established meaning within semantic
> web community.  The JSON-LD group would be *misleading* the public by
> stating or implying that Linked Data is not necessarily based on RDF.

To be honest who really cares about the minority the semantic web 
community is right now? The majority wants an easy to adaptable and 
understandable format that is ready to use in a few steps (JSON-LD is 
nearly simple plain old JSON and that's why often ready to use with 
JavaScript - the dominant web programming language nowadays). So no long 
description about the background and relationships at a first glance. 
Only the minority of the adopters will probably grasp (or be interested 
in) the whole dimension of what it probably means to use JSON-LD for 
describing their things.

>> 2. It is the groups experience that Web developers have an aversion to
>> RDF as a complex technology due to RDF/XML and other technologies that
>> do not represent the current RDF world. It doesn't matter if these
>> aversions are based on reality - the aversion exists, so we try to
>> downplay RDF as much as possible in the JSON-LD spec.
> I agree with the goal of keeping it simple for Web developers, but I
> think the downplaying has gone to the point of hiding it, and that is
> harmful.  If developers' view of RDF is going to change, they need to
> know that it *is* RDF that they are using when they use JSON-LD.  If
> they see how easy it is to use JSON-LD, it will stand on its own merits,
> even if it does say "RDF inside".  To my mind, the goal should not be to
> *hide* the fact that it is JSON-LD is RDF, but to make JSON-LD 100%
> usable by those who do not wish to learn anything *else* about RDF --
> i.e., anything beyond what they learn in the JSON-LD spec.

When viewing back in history we all know the problems RDF and Semantic 
Web had and still has. So why not using the spirit of the moment JSON-LD 
spreads to the Web*?



PS: as we also already know the Semantic Web is just one milestone of 
implementing the vision of the Web as it was written down by TimBL in 
1989 ;)

Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 19:06:16 UTC