- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:25:51 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, Peter. Noted and understood. I am surprised, though, at your comment that you are unhappy with where the docs are headed. Others, including me, see improvement. Can you specify particular areas of concern? Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood On Jun 13, 2013, at 2:56, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > I have been staying out of the heated discussion on JSON-LD partly because it is happening on public-rdf-comments. > > This does not mean that I am not interested in the discussion. > > It also does not mean that I am happy with the current state of the JSON-LD documents. > > It also does not mean that I am happy with the direction that the JSON-LD documents are heading in. > > I am pretty sure that my thoughts on this matter are on record in the WG archives. (On JSON-LD - if JSON-LD is to be a product of the RDF WG then it must have a very close relationship to RDF, both in actuality and, perhaps more importantly, in description. On documents - defining documents are to be written to be precise and to build on previous work, and not to be quick or easy reads nor stand-alone nor to hide relationships.) > > peter > >
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 12:26:13 UTC