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

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:34 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> >> Not surprising at all.  That document was clearly a rough draft.  It
> >> is not surprising that TimBL added more clarification as he edited it.
> >
> > And apparently it still is. Just the few sentences you quoted are
> > full of typos.
> Everything Tim writes is full of typos.

Yeah, but who knows that? Would you buy something from an online shop where
everything is full of typos? I wouldn't because I wouldn't trust that shop.
I'm not saying I'm not trusting Tim, but if I wouldn't know Tim (and his
writing style), than I would assume this is a cheap scam site whose creator
didn't even take the time to run a spell-checker.

> > We are certainly not re-defining it. If we are doing something, then
> > we are generalizing it by omitting a remark.
> >
> >
> >> Claiming or implying that Linked Data is not based on RDF would be
> >> misleading the public.  It is factually untrue.
> >
> > We are not claiming that Linked Data is not based on RDF. If so,
> > please quote the relevant text from the spec. We are just not
> > mentioning that Linked Data is based on RDF in the intro. That's it.
> That is called "Economy with the truth". It is classified as a form of
> deceit, listed in as one of the many
> forms of lying. If you ever do it to the police, you can be charged
> with a felony. So David is perfectly correct: you are lying to the
> public.

That may be true if there were an unambiguous definition somewhere. This
thread should be evidence enough that people interpret that draft
differently. I doubt that you could even file a copyright for such a generic
phrase as "Linked Data".

> >> I do not believe that mentioning that Linked Data is "based on RDF"
> >> will have a significant impact on the adoption of JSON-LD.
> >
> > Other people do; myself included based on first-hand experience.
> But we here talking about a potential W3C Recommendation. By and large,
> it is widely expected that documents this "standard" actually tell the
> full truth, openly and honestly, regardless of the consequences. In
> particular, they should carefully and unambiguously spell out any
> relationships to other standards. They are not manifestos or exercises
> in persuasion or propaganda.

I think we are doing that very clearly. What we are currently arguing about
is the position of these statements in the document. Do you have a concrete
proposal of the changes you would like to see?

Markus Lanthaler

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 10:14:49 UTC