W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

RE: RDF 1.1 Primer

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:38:02 +0100
To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "'Andy Seaborne'" <andy@apache.org>
Message-ID: <033a01cef5ce$956c3d90$c044b8b0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Saturday, December 07, 2013 7:00 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> On 04/12/13 18:55, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > other hand, for newcomers a representation similar to what they are
> > familiar with from JSON APIs may be much more appealing. At least
> > they will immediately see that it is possible to serialize RDF in
> > such a way. I fear that if we don't do this early on we will lose
> > a lot of people.
> >
> > I would even go as far as suggesting we show that directly in section
> > 5. Would anyone object to this?
> I don't think it is a good idea.  It's a primer and the space is at a
> premium.  It's hard but we don't really get a chance to make too many
> points.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. This proposal was not about adding any new
content. It was just about reordering to show people without any RDF
background (aka average web developer Joe) early enough in the document that
RDF can be serialized in a way that looks familiar to them.

> > Fully agree with this but I think we should also keep in mind how most
> > examples look in the wild. Schema.org, Actions in GMail, json-ld.org,
> > the JSON-LD spec to just name a few all use @id and @type. If we alias
> > them in the primer, people will probably get confused when comparing
> > it to the other documents. I consider keyword-aliasing a really
> > advanced feature.
> If you think it's advanced, then, yes, not primer material.

Yeah, I think it is.

> Please choose one graph example - having several examples is IMO
> confusing to a primer reader, making JSON-LD look complicated and
> scary.
>   I think the point to make here is that JSON-LD exists and lead the
> reader to go look at it.  Or produce a "RDF 1.1 Primer (JSON-LD
> edition)".
> Maybe have two JSON-LD sections one for single graph and one for
> multiple graphs.

I think we can drop the multiple graph examples altogether. The TriG example
that's there is enough IMO. Just mention that other syntaxes support
multiple graphs as well.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 17:38:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:36 UTC