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 10:00 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 06/10/2013 11:49 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> I think there may be other positive outcomes.    Without getting into
>> them, I think there might be a compromise in mentioning RDF toward the
>> beginning in a very careful way that preserves some distance and does
>> not make people feel they should go off and read about RDF.  Something
>> like this in the Introduction:
>>
>>      JSON-LD was designed to be compatible with Semantic Web technologies
>>      like RDF and SPARQL.  People intending to use JSON-LD with RDF tools
>>      will find it can be used as another RDF syntax, like Turtle.
>>      Complete details of how JSON-LD relates to RDF are in Appendix C.
> +0.5, I could live with something like this.
>
> -- manu
>
Why not:

"People intending to use JSON-LD with RDF tools will find it can be used 
as another RDF syntax, like Turtle."

Why do we need?

"JSON-LD was designed to be compatible with Semantic Web technologies 
like RDF and SPARQL."


-- 

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