Re: Potential Formal Objection from DERI over JSON-LD

On 10/24/12 3:08 AM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>> Is it possible to somehow hook JSON-RDF+LD or something along those lines into the mix? The basic goal is to accentuate the point of intersection between JSON-LD and RDF without assuming that folks instinctively make the aforementioned leap -- whenever JSON-LD and RDF are the topic of discussion.
> How about a pull request to [1]?
>
> Cheers,
> 	   Michael
>
> [1] https://github.com/mhausenblas/5stardata.info

I'll try :-)

Kingsley
>
> --
> 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 19:05, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
>> On 10/23/12 1:19 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Is it possible to somehow hook JSON-RDF+LD or something along those lines into the mix? The basic goal is to accentuate the point of intersection between JSON-LD and RDF without assuming that folks instinctively make the aforementioned leap -- whenever JSON-LD and RDF are the topic of discussion.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes, so you have to find a convenient way to highlight JSON-RDF+LD (meaning: JSON based Linked Data that conforms to RDF).
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with RDF based Linked Data style of qualification. We only get into trouble when RDF and Linked Data are pitched as being one and the same which will always fail.
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


-- 

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