RDF-ISSUE-132 (LC2 - Booth - JSON-LD/RDF Alignment): JSON-LD should be more closely aligned with RDF [JSON-LD Last Call 2]

RDF-ISSUE-132 (LC2 - Booth - JSON-LD/RDF Alignment): JSON-LD should be more closely aligned with RDF [JSON-LD Last Call 2]


Raised by: Manu Sporny
On product: JSON-LD Last Call 2

Change requests by David Booth for JSON-LD:

1. Insert "based on RDF" to the definition of Linked Data, as explained 

2. Define a *normative* bi-directional mapping of a JSON profile to and 
from the RDF abstract syntax, so that the JSON profile *is* a 
serialization of RDF, and is fully grounded in the RDF data model and 

3. Use skolemized URIs in the normative mapping to prevent mapping JSON 
syntax to illegal RDF.

4. Make editorial changes to avoid implying that JSON-LD is not RDF. 
For example, change "Convert to RDF" to "Convert to Turtle" or perhaps 
"Convert to RDF Abstract Syntax".

5. Define normative names for, and clearly differentiate between, the 
JSON serialization of RDF and JSON-LD, such that JSON-LD *is* a JSON 
serialization of RDF, with additional constraints for Linked Data (such 
as URIs use "http:" prefix, etc.).  They do not necessarily have to be 
defined in two separate documents.  They could be defined in a single 
document called "JSON-RDF and JSON-LD", for example.  People that use 
the JSON RDF serialization for purposes other than Linked Data need to 
be able to easily and clearly talk about that serialization *without* 
wrongly implying adherence to the additional Linked Data requirements 
imposed by JSON-LD, and *without* having to explain that those 
requirements can be ignored in this case.

If there is one thing we all should have learned from the Semantic Web, 
it is the value of assigning an unambiguous name to every important 
concept.  A JSON serialization of RDF is a *very* important concept and 
deserves its own unambiguous name, distinct from JSON-LD.

6. Some small editorial fixes:

"Since JSON-LD is 100% compatible with JSON" would be better phrased as 
"Since JSON-LD is a restricted form of JSON", because saying that 
JSON-LD is compatible with JSON wrongly suggests that JSON-LD is *not* 
JSON, when in fact it is.

s/secrete agents/secret agents/

More here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Apr/0060.html

Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 15:30:55 UTC