- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 01:17:37 -0400
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
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