- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:08:48 -0400
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Oct 19, 2012, at 24:04 , Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I read over the LSON-LD syntax 1.0 editors draft of 16 Oct, and glanced at the one dated 18 Oct. > > The technical issues are not as problematic as I had thought. It appears that JSON-LD is quite close to RDF and that the differences can be fixed. > > The presentation issues, however, are quite a bit worse that I had thought would be the case by now. The draft of 16 Oct scarcely mentions RDF. It restates a whole lot of the basic definitions of RDF, and even in ways that obscure the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF. The draft of 18 Oct appears to be somewhat better, but not (yet) by much. > > I state that the JSON-LD Syntax document MUST not only align with RDF but MUST also utilize the RDF definitions (particularly from RDF concepts). The vague promises in the document are wholly inadequate; the change needs to happen well before last call, as it is a major change. > > For example, LSON-LD MUST be stated as a way of writing down RDF graphs (with perhaps a simple generalization, although if linked data does not allow bnode properties then I see no reason to allow bnode properties in LSON-LD). JSON-LD nodes MUST be stated to be RDF nodes. JSON-LD data values MUST be stated to be RDF literals and mention both plain and datayped literals. JSON blank nodes MUST be stated to be RDF blank nodes. All the JSON ordered constructs allowed in JSON-LD MUST be stated to be insignificant and there MUST be a test that tests this, or MUST have a translation into something in RDF that is ordered, and this translation should be prominent in the document. Examples MUST be stated to be RDF, not linked data. > > In essence, for JSON-LD to progress in the RDF WG, it should align to RDF, not linked data! There should be many more occurrences of "RDF" than "linked data". Consider the first bit of section 3.1 - it should say RDF in every numbered point, except, perhaps, the last. > (My activity lead's hat put down) Without going into details, I think this may go a bit too far. I do understand the wish of the JSON-LD editors to use terminologies and presentations that are closer to the target audience of this document, who are primarily Web developers accessing RDF/Linked Data through their familiar JSON environment and who, for good or bad reasons, have some aversion v.a.v. core RDF. I agree that things should be aligned but I think 'There should be many more occurrences of "RDF" than "linked data"' would lead to this document be ignored by many whom we like to attract as possible users. I would wait for the outcome of the work that Manu and Richard have signed up for working out the details for such alignments. I agree that this issue should be put behind us before going to official LC, though. ivan > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 19 October 2012 14:09:21 UTC