Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

Lee,

> I've read this thread, the quora question, and the G+ thread and still don't really understand what you'd be objecting to, Michael. Could you clarify? Are you objecting to the use of WG resources on this effort? Are you objecting to the branding of JSON-LD as an RDF serialization? Are you objecting to the fact that it's being produced by the RDF WG and not some other group?

At the current point in time a FO is certainly not in order as the process doesn't allow it, so let's not go there. As you've read both the G+ and the Quora thread you may have noticed that I personally have never used the term FO. Manu introduced it (maybe intentionally to draw attention to it?) ...

What I want is that either JSON-LD is indeed officially acknowledged as an RDF serialization or, if the JSON-LD proponents think RDF is not suitable, then stop working on it as an RDF WG deliverable.

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 13:02, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> I've read this thread, the quora question, and the G+ thread and still don't really understand what you'd be objecting to, Michael. Could you clarify? Are you objecting to the use of WG resources on this effort? Are you objecting to the branding of JSON-LD as an RDF serialization? Are you objecting to the fact that it's being produced by the RDF WG and not some other group? I really don't quite understand. (Which is odd, since I have no horse in this game and no personal need/use for JSON-LD, but also no problem with its current trajectory.)
> 
> Also, for what it's worth, the W3C process strongly encourages technical arguments to back objections:
> 
> """
> An individual who registers a Formal Objection SHOULD cite technical arguments and propose changes that would remove the Formal Objection; these proposals MAY be vague or incomplete. Formal Objections that do not provide substantive arguments or rationale are unlikely to receive serious consideration by the Director.
> """
> 
> Lee
> 
> On 10/18/2012 7:30 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>>> You may recall that the WG resolved to publish two of the JSON-LD docs (not all four), starting with FPWD at [1].
>> For the record: unfortunately, at this meeting neither Richard nor myself seems to have been present. Can you confirm this please?
>> 
>> 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 12:13:11 UTC