W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > May 2013


From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 14:52:21 -0400
Message-ID: <51816465.2060908@dbooth.org>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 05/01/2013 09:23 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 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.

I disagree.  The explicit goal of standardization is to pick a winner -- 
to *reduce* the choices -- because fragmentation is harmful to the 

If two JSON-based RDF serialization standards served significantly 
different use cases then it would make sense to have both, and the 
differences should be publicized so that users can figure out which to 
use when.  But AFAICT the use cases for RDF/JSON and JSON-LD overlap 
*substantially*: both can be used for serializing both RDF that follows 
the Linked Data conventions and RDF that does not.

I do *not* believe that there is a substantial difference in the way 
programmers want to access and manipulate RDF that follows the Linked 
Data conventions versus RDF that does not.  In one case the URIs are 
sometimes dereferenced; in the other they're not.  Big deal.  But there 
*is* a substantial difference between working with the data only at the 
syntactic (JSON) level, and working with it at the RDF triple level. 
That difference has *nothing* to do with Linked Data versus non-Linked 


> 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> .
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 18:52:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:33 UTC