Re: The tone of the "JSON-LD vs. RDF" debate (was re: Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data)

On 6/11/13 7:43 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> If the third is a serious problem (which I doubt) then it is one that we are going to have to live with in the short term and which will go away by itself in time. The first two can be handled by deft editorial wording and quick reassurances, along the lines of "No knowledge of the RDF spec documents is necessary in order to use JSON-LD."
>
> But my main concern is not about how early the RDF connection is spelled out, but that it does get stated clearly and unambiguously and normatively in the specification document*somewhere*. This is after all a*standards specification*, not a propaganda or advertising effort. (Or a "for dummies" tutorial.) It needs to state the facts clearly and unambiguously, and to clearly state the relationships to other standards. To re-define the RDF data model, calling it by another name, and not stating that it is a re-statement of the RDF abstract graph syntax, is just wrong.
Pat,

To be clear, as I highlighted too much of your paragraph in my earlier 
response, the statement above is what I agree with.

I don't agree with:

"It is *deliberately* misleading; it is in fact a form of lying. (See 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_with_the_truth.) And that is just 
not acceptable in a W3C Recommendation, IMO, no matter how 
well-intentioned the motives are for doing it. "

The folks that have worked on JSON-LD are not *intending* to deceive 
anyone. They are simply trying to broaden adoption and appreciation of 
RDF to a developer profile that has historically resisted anything with 
associated with the letters R-D-F. That's it.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen