Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

David,

> You may recall that the WG resolved to publish two of the JSON-LD docs (not all four), starting with FPWD at [1].

Yes.


> It would seem that your specific concerns regard marketing, not technology.  

It's about expectations, endorsement and agreement.


> 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? 

I think I did clearly lay out the options that I see?

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 18 Oct 2012, at 12:20, David Wood wrote:

> 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 11:27:35 UTC