- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:37:51 +0100
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
David Booth wrote: > > > 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? RDF compatible?
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 22:38:53 UTC