Re: JSON-LD terminology

On 8/31/12 5:02 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:12 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>>>> A problematic excerpt from the document referenced above:
>>>>
>>>> "A Linked Data document does not necessarily need to be expressed in
>> JSON-LD. The notion of Linked Data is a concept independent of any
>> given serialization format. In particular, any document based on an RDF
>> serialization format is a Linked Data document."
>>>> It isn't accurate to assert that any RDF document is a Linked Data
>> document, and here's why:
>>>> An RDF document doesn't have to be comprised of triple based content
>> where each URI is dereferencable. There's nothing in the RDF spec that
>> mandates that.
>>>> Linked Data, as per TimBL's meme, mandates de-referencable URIs.
>> [...]
>>
>> RDF != Linked Data. Never has been. Its an optional (preferred by W3C,
>> naturally) route to the destination. Conflating RDF and Linked Data
>> hasn't benefited either endeavor, to date.
> Would you, and the other members of the RDF WG, be fine with just dropping
> the sentence "In particular, any document based on an RDF serialization
> format is a Linked Data document"?

Speaking for myself, resounding yes!

>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
>
>


-- 

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