- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:20:36 -0400
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Michael and all, You may recall that the WG resolved to publish two of the JSON-LD docs (not all four), starting with FPWD at [1]. It would seem that your specific concerns regard marketing, not technology. Manu has already committed to "put a section on RDF in the spec" [2]. I'm sure that he can adjust the wording if needed, but threatening a formal objection on non-technical grounds seems counterproductive. Instead, can you please suggest some alternative wording for the spec? Thanks. Regards, Dave [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-07-11#resolution_1 [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-06-20#line0268 On Oct 18, 2012, at 4:57, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: > > Thank you, Manu - you beat me to it ;) > > Just to clarify: this is not about the quality or the amount of work that went into JSON-LD. Neither do I want to discuss its usefulness. I acknowledge that there are use cases where JSON-LD certainly serves well. > > ## Why, oh why? > > We're faced with a situation ATM that the JSON-LD proponents talk with two different groups: on the one hand us here in the WG and on the other hand to potential adopters such as Drupal or WikiData. Towards the former group the JSON-LD proponents keep maintaining that JSON-LD is in fact an RDF serialization. Towards the latter stake holders, the JSON-LD proponents claim that JSON-LD has nothing to do with RDF. > > You can't have the cake and eat it. > > > ## Options > > Now, to break it down, I see two options: > > 1. JSON-LD is indeed considered as an official RDF serialization by the JSON-LD proponents. Then, JSON-LD has to follow the RDF model 100% - no more exceptions, no new terms, etc. > 2. JSON-LD is not considered as an official RDF serialization by the JSON-LD proponents, in which case I propose to stop continuing on the REC track in the RDF WG, effective immediately. > > Again, it is unfortunate that this surfaces so late in the process but I was observing the JSON-LD development (in RDF WG land and outside) for a while now and was sort of - admittedly naïvely - hoping it would sort out by itself. > > > Cheers, > Michael > > -- > Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow > DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute > NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway > Ireland, Europe > Tel.: +353 91 495730 > http://mhausenblas.info/ > > On 17 Oct 2012, at 20:18, Manu Sporny wrote: > >> Michael Hausenblas wrote: >>> (with my DERI AC rep and RDF WG member hat on) I will strongly >>> advise the [RDF] WG to abandon REC track for JSON-LD. >> >> The rest of the conversation is here: >> >> https://plus.google.com/u/0/102497386507936526460/posts/KCVJVLNZKNb?cfem=1 >> >> Bringing it to the groups attention so we're not blind-sided by it >> during FTF3, LC or CR. >> >> -- manu >> >> -- >> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) >> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >> blog: HTML5 and RDFa 1.1 >> http://manu.sporny.org/2012/html5-and-rdfa/ >> > >
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 11:21:06 UTC