- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 09:34:41 -0400
- To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
For those of you that continue to be unconvinced that some very educated folks think that RDF is too complicated, this blog post may be enlightening: http://berjon.com/blog/2013/06/linked-data.html My response: http://berjon.com/blog/2013/06/linked-data.html#comment-943596712 Robin's response: http://berjon.com/blog/2013/06/linked-data.html#comment-944074845 Robin is very smart, he builds a ton of very useful tools for the Web (like ReSpec, which is what we use for writing W3C specs), and is one of the W3C HTML5 editors. He truly understands the Web stack (more than most everyone on this mailing list, I'd imagine) and is very critical of RDF. He's not alone. It is this sort of discussion is the driving reason that we wanted to push RDF to the back of the spec, as something that JSON-LD is compatible with, for the people that care about that sort of thing (most don't). I'll start posting more of these sorts of discussions to this mailing list since it seems that there are a number of RDF WG members that are unaware of the amount of push-back to RDF from seasoned Web developers. This discussion also underscores my reluctance to talk about RDF at the beginning of the JSON-LD spec. We're damaging the simple and concise message that was JSON-LD a year ago. The spec is moving toward the current consensus of the RDF WG and JSON-LD CG, but speaking as one of the primary creators of JSON-LD, I'm pretty unhappy with the changes - they make the spec worse, not better. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Meritora - Web payments commercial launch http://blog.meritora.com/launch/
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 13:35:05 UTC