Re: Fwd: RDF/JSON

On 4/30/13 7:21 PM, Peter Ansell wrote:
>
> I am amazed that the JSON-LD developers feel threatened enough by 
> RDF/JSON to be putting up a fuss about it possibly being a recognised 
> format by the W3C. If True Web developers prefer JSON-LD then they can 
> start off by using that once it gets out their, but it shouldn't stop 
> the standardisation of Yet Another RDF Format just because it can be 
> parsed using the same family of parsers.
RDF/JSON and JSON-LD should be given equal billing by the W3C. Picking 
winners is a shortcut to politically induced inertia, every time.
>
> Luckily RDF/JSON is already complete enough (and simple to understand 
> for people wanting to work with RDF triples) that it can be useful for 
> groups of developers whether the W3C decides to push it through or not.

Yes, but the W3C should apply the "wisdom of Solomon" here by not 
picking winners.

For instance, DBpedia supports RDF/JSON and JSON-LD, just as it does 
other formats associated with RDF [1][2].

Links:

1. http://uriburner.com:8000/vapour -- enhanced variant of Vapor that 
goes beyond RDF/XML
2. http://bit.ly/15ZxzHo -- Vapor Report for 
<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_data> .


-- 

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