- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:30:21 -0400
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 06/12/2013 04:40 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 6/12/13 4:27 PM, David Booth wrote: >> >> >> On 06/12/2013 04:10 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>> On 6/12/13 3:04 PM, David Booth wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 06/12/2013 02:09 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/13 2:04 PM, David Booth wrote: >>>>>> On 06/12/2013 01:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>>>>> [ . . . ] >>>>>>> A little tweak, for consideration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> JSON-LD was designed to be usable by developers as idiomatic JSON, >>>>>>> with no need to understand RDF [RDF11-CONCEPTS]. However, JSON-LD >>>>>>> was also designed to be RDF compatible, so people intending to use >>>>>> >>>>>> -1 >>>>>> >>>>>> "compatible with RDF" wrongly suggests that JSON-LD is *not* RDF. >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> "..However, JSON-LD was also designed to be usable as RDF.." >>>>> >>>>> What does that mean? >>>>> >>>>> How is something usable as RDF? >>>>> >>>>> Let's try this then: >>>>> >>>>> JSON-LD was designed to be usable by developers as idiomatic JSON, >>>>> with no need to understand RDF [RDF11-CONCEPTS]. However, people >>>>> intending to use >>>>> JSON-LD with RDF tools will find it can be used like any other >>>>> RDF syntax. Complete details of how JSON-LD relates to RDF are in >>>>> C. Relationship to RDF. >>>>> >>>>> Change: >>>>> >>>>> I removed "JSON-LD was also designed to be usable as RDF, so" >>>> >>>> -1 >>>> >>>> That makes it unclear that JSON-LD is RDF. >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> David, >>> >>> Your position is understood re., the minuses. Thus, I would kindly ask >>> you to let others digest what I've outlined below so that they can >>> figure out how to fix the concerns outlined. The rest of this mail >>> simply puts things together so that others don't have to crawl through a >>> growing thread. >>> >>> >>> Original: >>> >>> JSON-LD was designed to be usable by developers as idiomatic JSON, >>> with no need to understand RDF [RDF11-CONCEPTS]. However, JSON-LD >>> was also designed to be usable as RDF, so people intending to use >>> JSON-LD with RDF tools will find it can be used like any other >>> RDF syntax. Complete details of how JSON-LD relates to RDF are in >>> C. Relationship to RDF. >>> >>> Concern: >>> >>> What does "usable as RDF" mean? Bearing in mind that RDF is a framework >>> i.e., the Resource Description Framework. >>> >>> I suspect it could mean that JSON-LD can be used as a Resource >>> Description Framework? >> >> Would it be clearer if that sentence were phrased in the exact same >> way that the first sentence is phrased? "JSON-LD was also designed to >> be usable by developers as idiomatic RDF, so . . . ." >> >>> >>> My suggested alternative wording, assuming the goal isn't to state that >>> JSON-LD can be used as a Resource Description Framework: >> >> But the point of that sentence is to be clear that JSON-LD can be used >> as RDF, just as it can be used as JSON. > When you align RDF and JSON in the manner outlined above, you open up > the RDF == JSON trap door. As far as I know, RDF != JSON. I do not see how it opens up an "RDF == JSON" trap door any more than it opens up a "JSON-LD = JSON" trapdoor. Saying that "X is usable as Y" does not say that "X = Y". > > A simple paragraph devoid of ambiguity will do. Right now, I am stumped > at "usable as RDF" which is at best ambiguous. Would "processable as idiomatic JSON-LD" and "processable as RDF" be better in your eyes? David > > Kingsley >> >> David >> >>> >>> JSON-LD was designed to be usable by developers as idiomatic JSON, >>> with no need to understand RDF [RDF11-CONCEPTS]. However, people >>> intending to use JSON-LD with RDF tools will find it can be used like >>> any other >>> RDF syntax. Complete details of how JSON-LD relates to RDF are in >>> C. Relationship to RDF. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 22:30:48 UTC