Re: comments on JSON-LD 1.0, A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data

On 6/17/13 2:02 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
> For JSON-LD to be a W3C recommendation, I believe that it must defer to the
> W3C vision of Linked Data, including both the initial definitions of Linked
> Data and the centrality of RDF in Linked Data.  For JSON-LD to be a W3C
> recommendation from the W3C RDF working group, I believe that it must be
> normatively based on RDF.
In this context I have not disagreement with the position put forth. 
This (to me) is the crux of the matter. It might also help if (at some 
point) TimBL's revised meme is referenced as (at the very least) the 
informative basis for the W3C's view of Linked Data, within relevant 
documents.

Net effect: the whole RDF and Linked Data conflation issue gets 
resolved. When the W3C (a body responsible for standardization) speaks 
of RDF and Linked Data, in the context of its published standards 
everything is clear, because context is cleanly established. At the same 
time, if others have different views based on an alternative world view, 
it doesn't matter since the W3C specs are expected to express a world 
view based on the standards it recommends.

Thank you Peter!

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen