- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:11:32 +0100
- To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
> Not advocating, just pointing out that there is an alternative that's already implemented and deployed in a couple of places. Interesting, yes, have forgotten about this one. Ian, Tom, any thoughts on this? Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel.: +353 91 495730 http://mhausenblas.info/ On 23 Oct 2012, at 20:32, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 23 Oct 2012, at 18:59, Manu Sporny wrote: >> This also means that if this group decides to not publish JSON-LD as a >> REC, that they'd have to come up with an alternate RDF/JSON mechanism to >> achieve the charter requirement > > The WG could revive [1], which was abandoned/shelved quite some time ago in favour of seeing how JSON-LD turns out. > > Not advocating, just pointing out that there is an alternative that's already implemented and deployed in a couple of places. > > Best, > Richard > > > [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-json/index.html
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 07:12:03 UTC