On Jun 11, 2013, at 10:00, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> 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. Since I was clear starting last June that the RDF Working Group would need clear alignment with RDF in order to publish the spec, I think I should express an opinion here. I could live with this phrasing as it stands, so +1 from me (chair hat "on"). I recognize the challenges inherent in restricting the use of JSON to encode JSON-LD, the value in having a JSON-compatible serialization for RDF data and the line that the JSON-LD Community Group has walked. I do *not* believe that anyone was or is attempting to be dishonest, nor do I feel that it is a useful way to frame this discussion. Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: Meritora - Web payments commercial launch > http://blog.meritora.com/launch/ >
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 16:16:09 UTC