- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:30:36 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 29/08/12 15:14, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 8/29/12 10:05 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> The proposal for a reworded Linked Data definition is better. >> >>> Some of the data model differences require further discussion and >>> need to be publicly aired, as they impinge on long-held resolutions >>> in JSON-LD. >> >> Good to hear - >> >> >> One specific point: >> >>> [[ 1. Linked Data is a set of documents, each containing a >>> representation >> of a linked data graph. >> ... >>> 8. IRIs used within a linked data graph SHOULD be dereferenceable to >>> a Linked Data document describing the resource denoted by that IRI. >>> ]]] >> >> >> Test case: is foaf:name <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> an IRI >> dereferenceable to a Linked Data document? > > See: > > 1. > http://kingsley.idehen.net/describe/?url=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name > -- It does resolve to content that describes the subject denoted by the IRI > > 2. http://bit.ly/SQOQvx -- same thing via vapor. No quite. "The following definition for Linked Data is the one that will be used for this specification. " and this specification is JSON-LD. So you haven't quite answered the question - does the text lead the reader to the conclusion that a non-JSON-LD document meets "a Linked Data document" given "Linked Data" defined in point 1. (I hope "yes" but the doc read in context is not specific enough). > > [SNIP] > >> >> Andy >> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 14:31:10 UTC