Re: Potential Formal Object from DERI over JSON-LD

On 10/22/12 11:59 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2012, at 16:27, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
>> >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.
> +1
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>
>
Richard, Antoine,

Yes, I just want the specs to make those pursuits (outlined above) much 
easier than they've been in the past. This means not having specs 
(overtly or covertly) conflate RDF and Linked Data. Personally, the past 
and current WIP RDF specs (as I read them) don't in anyway conflate 
these items. Most of the trouble comes from TimBL's tweak of his 
original (GOLDEN) Linked Data meme [1] which ended up being compromised 
by the addition of RDF and SPARQL to the document. In my travels re. 
Linked Data, this remains the prime source of RDF == Linked Data 
conflation and ensuing confusion.

As you know, the JSON-LD folks are also trying to reach the same point, 
but from time to time, they get hit the RDF == Linked Data conflation 
minefield.

Links:

1. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html

2. http://lab.linkeddata.deri.ie/2010/star-scheme-by-example/ -- this is 
more in the spirit of TimBL's original GOLDEN meme and just needs 
"denotes" to replace "identify" for the whole matter to be fixed once 
and for all.


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen