Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data

On 06/10/2013 05:10 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 06/09/2013 06:00 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 2:28 PM, David Booth <> wrote:
>> Overall, it is very good and needs very little change to fix the
>> problem that it currently redefines the term "Linked Data" in a
>> misleading way (by omitting "RDF").
>> Gregg wrote: All things considered, given the explicit reference to
>> [Linked Data], I think that these properties form a manifesto that
>> probably can't be repeated often enough. I would be a -0.1 on
>> removing the redefinition.
> -1 to removing the redefinition. We've just gone through a perma-thread
> where people couldn't agree on what the document being linked to states.

There are only a few outliers, and most of them seem to be members of 
the JSON-LD group who: (a) clearly have an ulterior motive in 
re-defining the term "Linked Data"; and (b) in some cases seem to have 
talked themselves into believing that that re-definition is the *real* 
definition, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

> Multiple people have stated it was a draft of an unfinished idea. The
> document has spelling/grammar errors.

That's just the way TimBL writes.  Look at the rest of his writings on 
the W3C site.  They are full of spelling/grammar errors.  That is his 
style.  In fact, when I was a W3C Fellow, as a joke one of the W3C sys 
admins created a tool that timbl-izes an arbitrary W3C page by 
introducing typos all over it.

> It's not even a W3C Note.

That is irrelevant.  The point is the term was coined with a particular 
meaning, that meaning is now well established in the community, and it 
is important to the community because of its messaging value.

> I don't think TimBL's document helps clarify what Linked Data is and
> isn't. We went through months of debate to come up with this section
> with multiple people from the RDF WG agreeing to the text in the current
> document after extended argumentation from both sides.

I'm sorry, but if it's wrong, it's wrong and needs to be fixed.  It is 
currently INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING, and that is wrong.

> -1 to changing the section with the text provided by David. I do agree
> with David's principle of underscoring the messaging that JSON-LD can be
> used to losslessly serialize the RDF data model... but I feel like the
> spec text already states that both informatively and normatively.

That isn't what this sub-issue is about.  I specifically separated out 
this sub-issue to focus only on the (re-)definition of Linked Data. 
Please address the issue of losslessly serializing RDF in a separate thread.


Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 22:09:59 UTC