- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:15:00 -0400
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- CC: 'public-rdf-comments' <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi Markus, On 06/09/2013 07:16 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > On Sunday, June 09, 2013 11:28 PM, David Booth wrote: >> Specific wording changes suggested: >> >> 1. Add TimBL's Linked Data document to the list of references, with >> a short name of [LINKED_DATA]: >> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html >> >> 2. In section 1 ("Introduction"), change the first occurrence of >> "Linked Data" in two ways: (a) change the font to be a plain, >> non-bold, non-italic font; and (b) add the citation "[LINKED_DATA]" >> after it. > > As Gregg already explained the formatting is due to internal > cross-references. Why is that important? Because it reads as a (misleading) definition. (And in fact the formatting macro specifies it as a definition!) If it is going to read like a definition it needs to be complete and correct. > > >> 3. Also in section 1 ("Introduction"), change: >> >> "In general, Linked Data has four properties: 1) it uses IRIs to >> name things; 2) it uses HTTP IRIs for those names; 3) the name >> IRIs, when dereferenced, provide more information about the thing; >> and 4) the data expresses links to data on other Web sites. These >> properties allow" >> >> to: >> >> "It allows" > > I don't think it is very wise to require readers to read an external > document (which is still a draft btw.) in the very first sentence. I considered that, but I don't think it does. The second paragraph of the intro says: [[ JSON-LD is a lightweight syntax to serialize Linked Data in JSON [RFC4627]. Its design allows existing JSON to be transformed to Linked Data with minimal changes. JSON-LD is primarily intended to be a way to use Linked Data in Web-based programming environments, to build interoperable Web services, and to store Linked Data in JSON-based storage engines. ]] Thus, if the purpose of JSON-LD is to serialize Linked Data in JSON, then for the most part, the reader can be presumed to already know about Linked Data. Otherwise the reader would not have had a reason to use JSON-LD. There will be exceptions of course, but those who are setting out to use JSON-LD without knowing about Linked Data can certainly follow the reference or do a web search to learn about it. > Thus I would be against this change. I think adding a reference as > you suggest is very reasonable and makes it clear that we are just > quickly describing the concept here. > > So, would you be satisfied if we would add the reference but not > remove the description? Not unless RDF is added to the description. The problem is that it reads as a definition. This is specifically why I proposed deleting the portions of the description that say *how* Linked Data works, leaving only the portions that describe its purpose and effect: to ensure that it does not sound like a definition. Thanks, David
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 00:15:27 UTC