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

Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:16:33 +0100
Message-ID: <50851D01.9000204@webr3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2012, at 04:59, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> I would be very interested to discover what y'all consider the be the definition of Linked Data. Can you provide a pointer to where this can be found? Thanks in advance.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_Data
> Trying to nail it down much tighter than that is counter-productive. I learned this the hard way a couple of years ago, when foolishly trying to stop people who were “doing Linked Data with Atom” from using the LD term.
> One can obviously do Linked Data with RDF, and that's by far the most popular approach. RDF is well-suited to that task, and it's the community where the LD term first emerged. W3C's LDP-WG is currently writing a specification that has more details for that.
> JSON-LD is an attempt at creating a format that allows doing Linked Data with JSON. That's great. However, there's a thin line between saying “we enable LD with JSON” and “JSON-LD is how you do LD”. The JSON-LD spec really ought to say only the first thing, but slips into implying the second too often.
> Attempting to enforce a particular implementation technology for Linked Data, be it RDF or JSON or Atom or Microdata or whatever, doesn't work. This is what Kingsley keeps repeating on a daily basis, and he's right.
> The fact that a JSON-LD document also can be parsed to an RDF graph is mostly orthogonal to this.

Well said Richard.

I understand that JSON-LD != RDF, but I do not understand what possible 
good could come from not publishing a well thought out and useful 
specification as a rec/spec/note through the RDF WG.

What harm will it do to publish it? (I have no meaningful and 
non-pedantic/political answers here)
What harm will it do not to publish it? (Confusion and Delay)

Manu, Gregg and many others have worked tirelessly on this for years, 
personally I feel this kind of effort and dedication to doing this 
correctly should be credited and embraced.

The question here may not be whether JSON-LD is considered an RDF 
serialization or not. But whether the specification itself is useful to 
those on the semantic web, and a good candidate to be a W3C 
Recommendation. To this I personally give a huge +1, and would see it as 
a crying shame if the RDF WG did not jump at the chance to get this 
document REC'd and out there to be used by.. well most of the people in 
this group, and those that this group targets.


Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 10:17:28 UTC

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