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

On 06/12/2013 04:54 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Since people are citing and
> talking about its earlier draft that didn't say (RDF, SPARQL,...)

One small factual clarification: Even the earliest public draft of that 
document explicitly mentions RDF and is clear that RDF is intended:
The current version adds another mention of RDF directly to the list of 
four expectations, so it cannot be missed even on the most cursory reading.


Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 13:35:35 UTC