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

It’s like re-inventing the wheel. I like the idea of recycling ideas.


Sven



Von: Pat Hayes
Gesendet: ‎Mittwoch‎, ‎12‎. ‎Juni‎ ‎2013 ‎00‎:‎18
An: Markus Lanthaler
Cc: 'public-rdf-comments'



On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:02 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:08 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> [...]
>> 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. It is *deliberately* misleading; it is in
>> fact a form of lying.
> 
> We were asked by members of the RDF WG to add this section. In fact, Richard
> wrote most of it, I just completed it because he got busy otherwise. There
> why reason it is there, is because the data models are not exactly the same.
> JSON-LD allows bnodes for graph labels and predicates wheras RDF's data
> model does not.

I know there are these slight differences, and I do not mean to imply that they are not important. But still, the JSON-LD model is clearly a slight generalization of RDF. It is not something completely different. It could be explained, for example, by saying that its the RDF model with two generalizations. (The bnodes-for-predicates generalization is already widely known in the RDF literature, invented by terHorst in 2004, and could be cited.) But to re-state all the rest of the model as though it was something wholly new, without any reference to RDF at all, is (to repeat myself) deliberately misleading. And I have to say, that your reply here seems to me to be an almost pure example of tendentiousness.

Pat

> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthale
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes