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

On 6/12/13 6:30 PM, David Booth wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 

David,

What does "processable as RDF" mean? In my eyes, it still inherits the 
ambiguity issue. Here's an attempt to break the issue down (note: I use 
seeAlso for sake of brevity to indicate "refer to content at" ) :

<urn:kingsley:minds:eye>

{<#jsonLD>

  <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <#LinkedDataFormat> ;

  <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#seeAlso> 
<http://json-ld.org/index.html> ;

  <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#comment> """JSON-LD (JavaScript 
Object Notation for Linking Data) is a lightweight Linked Data format 
that gives your data context. """ ;

<http://purl.org/dc/terms/description>

"""JSON-LD (JavaScript Object Notation for Linking Data) is a 
lightweight Linked Data format that gives your data context. It is easy 
for humans to read and write. It is easy for machines to parse and 
generate. It is based on the already successful JSON format and provides 
a way to help JSON data interoperate at Web-scale. If you are already 
familiar with JSON, writing JSON-LD is very easy. These properties make 
JSON-LD an ideal Linked Data interchange language for JavaScript 
environments, Web service, and unstructured databases such as CouchDB 
and MongoDB.

A simple example of a JSON object expressing Linked Data:

{
   "@context": "http://json-ld.org/contexts/person.jsonld",
   "@id": "http://dbpedia.org/resource/John_Lennon",
   "name": "John Lennon",
   "born": "1940-10-09",
   "spouse": "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Cynthia_Lennon"
} """ .


<#RDF>
<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> <#Framework> ;
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#seeAlso> 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/> .

  ## A Framework is not a Format, and my concern is that the "RDF is a 
format" trap door is opened the sentence fragment of concern ##

<#Framework>
<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#differentFrom> <#LinkedDataFormat> .

<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#differentFrom>

<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#seeAlso> 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#sameAs-def> .

}

Thus, I don't want to fall into the trap:

<#jsonLD> <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs> <#RDF> .

There needs to be a few more descriptive statements (entity 
relationships) extractable from the paragraph to ensure readers (many 
with R-D-F reflux) don't arrive at ambiguous conclusions.

Related:

1. https://twitter.com/kidehen/statuses/339748133468786688  -- what 
ontologies and vocabularies help us fix.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen