- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:19:30 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 10/23/12 12:20, Dan Brickley wrote: > Basically we're driving along a road somewhere. If we get too nerdy, > and tie "Linked Data" to some currently popular subset of RDF > deployment, we've lost it in detail and drive off the left side of > the road into the weeds. An excellent post by Dan and something I wholeheartedly agree with. Big +1. Dan's statements, coupled with Kingley's and Richard's are in the ballpark of what we're going for with JSON-LD. That said, a formal definition of "Linked Data" is something that the JSON-LD CG is not interested in working on at all at this point in the process. Neither should the RDF WG waste its time on this, as this thread is going squarely into the weeds. The thread started off being about aligning JSON-LD with RDF such that the RDF WG feels that it can put its name on the work and the JSON-LD CG (and all implementers of JSON-LD) feel that any changes made are an acceptable technical compromise. Let's not lose sight of that - let's keep this discussion focused on the technical issue. We had a very productive discussion with the editor of the RDF Concepts document this morning and formed consensus in the JSON-LD CG. I'll post the minutes soon. Let's see if we can carry that consensus forward in the RDF WG tomorrow. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: HTML5 and RDFa 1.1 http://manu.sporny.org/2012/html5-and-rdfa/
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 17:20:12 UTC