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

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

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:45:35 -0400
Message-ID: <51B37BCF.6030908@dbooth.org>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: "'Sven R. Kunze'" <sven.kunze@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de>, 'public-rdf-comments' <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
On 06/08/2013 02:30 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Saturday, June 08, 2013 5:13 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
[ . . . ]
>> Would adding your CLEAR statement ("JSON-LD is a concrete syntax of
>> RDF.") to the part "relationship" or even in the intro as the first
>> line as e.g. turtle does do any harm?
> You didn't read the intro, but already there we say
>     Developers that require any of the facilities listed above or
>     need to serialize an RDF graph or dataset [RDF11-CONCEPTS] in
>     a JSON-based syntax will find JSON-LD of interest.
> IMHO that's crystal clear.

But clarity needs to be assessed in the eyes of the *readers* -- not the 
authors.  Obviously it is *not* clear to readers, as you've heard 
substantially similar comments on this point from both Sven and from me. 
  Telling readers that they "will find JSON-LD of interest" is nowhere 
near as clear as explicitly saying that "JSON-LD is a concrete syntax of 
RDF" or "JSON-LD is a serialization format for RDF".

Received on Saturday, 8 June 2013 18:46:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:34 UTC