- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:07:24 -0400
- To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Michael, On Oct 18, 2012, at 7:27, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: > 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? It would be more helpful to suggest specific wording, I think. Regards, Dave > > 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 12:07:54 UTC