Re: RDF WG charter and JSON-LD resolutions

Haven't we discussed all of this ad nauseam months and months and months 
ago? Why in the world are we going through this again?

Lee

On 10/24/2012 9:42 AM, William Waites wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 24/10/12 11:53, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>>> There are two use cases:
>>> 1/ Exchange of RDF in JSON
> I suppose I'm not clear on the motivation or importance of this
> use case. We already have plenty of ways to exchange RDF, why
> do we need another? It seems to me that having two kinds of
> JSON for doing RDF would just create unnecessary confusion.
>
> Cheers,
> - -w
>
> - -- 
> William Waites MBCS
> Network Engineer                          Research Fellow
> High-speed Universal Broadband Scotland   School of Informatics
> University of Stirling                    University of Edinburgh
> http://www.tegola.org.uk/                 wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQh/AsAAoJEAmkx526g9IZs2oP/2ySgkwLQq+AuJHFES0bbecL
> R6LbP7hwhAoH2y5H8iEit29hrlRSgmKOj5jFhYKR5rYrJohRXy0X3v51co6V/lGk
> iquSJUpyye4ZQn3P3kXh6pkJm0zHWYEHOK3mDQ5D2GG7PCxSkNOGZMEeGFEXlnGD
> yqArrNZiJ71pQux0bF5HckPaNepx+5aEOV4dr00bb5vh2X8G1i2l8kWl+HUEBqzt
> l1aHpKZ29s9nHLf5FDxncvn+lPN08TbYW55PUCqxwZPGARTnMRFji/5BF9x2B8Hy
> LT2YdmPDOj9WaBzuNScO6vQhdHP0aHEeDj519ZIZyVV96avb64OTi3NP+ka+pPkq
> Ath81RE8CTAZ81SE4RSF+M24AbSxchvZzVaZ5d8jm9ieB9owyKY0crMuuGWzXmx8
> 1agf40TfDYgqOJnwtNvtPzgIAfcZekneIt5n04/SO8xHTNZa7V/RO+bzg7mJ3pC/
> FaMYVI01wMzSqoil1QycgH4lkcBIMgc97Xff0D/f2TWDMoaJxgyvelGySGfQQreu
> pR+3ssSNjI0Ylxzq3Nda0HZR6JxlGJ2yJeRl0KReAfIXTpsNjVqLOSMLKlnOHClY
> AuS0dJQDd2TLZ4i4rgyzcWUbYTsXP7HQf5daeNDfyqM2OJGgHLaFY1AAmxbIUeJ0
> /p7s/iUpn5HsJepdYVDb
> =iMey
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 13:45:01 UTC