W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:45:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMpDgVzO-kPVPF-jY5BYgHjwx1CUAYxoCHam+p=_Q_M5eSjTrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I have absolutely no problem with other documents about JSON-LD that don't
mention RDF at all.  However, if the controlling document on JSON-LD
produced by the RDF WG isn't about RDF in a very strong way, then there is
something very wrong.


On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> 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 14:45:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:22 UTC