Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

Here is a particular example.

The JSON-LD syntax doc says

A node 
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/index.html#dfn-node> 
having an outgoing edge /must/ be an IRI 
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/index.html#dfn-iri> 
or Blank Node 
<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/index.html#dfn-blank_node>.

This is not about RDF in a strong way.  It instead sort of mirrors the idea 
that the subject of an RDF triple must be an IRI or a Blank node.

Being about RDF in a strong way would instead defer to the definitions in RDF 
concepts.

peter

On 10/19/2012 12:06 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 10/19/12 10:45, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> 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.
> We keep veering into territory that is vague and non-technical. I don't
> understand the technical point you're making in the paragraph above,
> Peter. If we don't have technical specifics and areas of the spec that
> are being analyzed, it makes it very difficult to address the issue.
>
> To put it another way, phrases like "very strong way", "something very
> wrong", and "enough" place us firmly onto the "go fetch me a rock"
> playing field. We need /how/ one states something in a "very strong
> way". We need to know exactly /what/ is "very wrong". We need specifics.
>
> We need concrete spec text, or we need a concrete issue with the
> charter, or we need something actionable to go on. Without one of those
> things, we're going to transform this discussion into a perma-thread.
>
> -- manu
>

Received on Saturday, 20 October 2012 05:18:08 UTC