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

Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:27:14 +0200
Message-ID: <508565D2.7030107@emse.fr>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
I do not interpret Richard's comment in the same way (or maybe I 
misunderstand). Yes, it's good to have a lingua franca, and we, the RDF 
working group, are only recommending one language, namely RDF, which has 
several serialisation formats, including JSON-LD.

This does not mean that RDF is the only possible way to get Linked Data, 
and I totally agree with Richard in that respect.

The problem of JSON-LD is that it comes from the RDF working group and 
yet does not show up as an RDF spec: it looks like the product of a 
"Linked Data group" that wants to create a JSON format for implementing 
Linked Data. It is possible to do so, it's also possible to never 
mention RDF when educating people to JSON-LD, but it is not right to 
make it a product of the RDF WG if it's not clearly a RDF product.

Now, I sympathise with Kingsley leitmotiv that we (individual persons, 
not WG) should present RDF in ways that suit our audience's vocabulary 
(e.g., EAV rather than SPO). But this has to be done in tutorials, 
classrooms, presentations, communications, etc with our partners, not 
inside the W3C spec, IMO.


Le 22/10/2012 17:05, Steve Harris a écrit :
> For what it's worth (and this is really off topic, especially for the
> RDF working group) I don't agree with this viewpoint at all.
> IMHO if we don't define a lingua franca for Linked Data then we're
> wasting our time even discussing the idea of it. The situation is bad
> enough with RDFa, JSON-LD, GRDDL, POWDER, Ntriples, N3, Turtle, and
> RDF/XML - not to mention NQuads, TriG, and TriX - without bringing
> other data models into the equation as well.
> http://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data makes no mention of
> non-RDF stack languages.
> - Steve
> On 2012-10-22, at 14:03, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>> If it can be sent over HTTP, and can express hyperlinks in a
>> standard way, and can express arbitrary attribute-value pairs in a
>> standard way, then it can do Linked Data.
>> Best, Richard
>> On 22 Oct 2012, at 12:03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> So I could have reverse Polish notation
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation linked data?
>>> Or object-oriented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_database
>>> linked data? Or fuzzy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
>>> linked data?  Or Montague
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_grammar linked data?  These
>>> are all standard in some sense.
>>> There has to be some notion that everyone is serving up stuff
>>> that others can read.  Otherwise linked data is nothing more than
>>> a slogan.  But where is the boundary?  It seems to me that the
>>> boundary is triples, i.e., RDF.  What linked data adds is nothing
>>> more than pragmatics.  (Not that pragmatics isn't important.)
>>> peter
>>> On 10/22/2012 06:02 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>>>> Pat,
>>>> 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.
>>>> Best, Richard

Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 15:27:40 UTC

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