- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 23:38:23 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:12 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I suppose that given the recent discussion on JSON-LD I should not have been surprised to see that JSON-LD is not completely defined in terms of the RDF. > > However, I must admit that I was surprised to see how much this is true. > > As far as I can see, no part of the definition of JSON-LD is defined in terms of any part of RDF. In particular, as far as I can see, Appendix A of "JSON-LD 1.0: A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data", W3C Editor's Draft 16 June 2013, has definitions of just about every aspect of RDF graphs without once referring to any RDF document. Some of these definitions are extensions of the ones in the RDF documents and some are different. > > Given this fundamental disconnect between JSON-LD and RDF, why should JSON-LD become a recommendation of the W3C RDF working group? I think an analogy might be to ask why the East India Company should have become involved in selling opium to China. Pat > > > peter > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 04:38:50 UTC