- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:06:40 -0400
- To: public-webid@w3.org
- Message-ID: <53C6A310.3050605@openlinksw.com>
On 7/16/14 10:23 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote: > Hi Kingsley, > >> >Is there any reason why Turtle and JSON-LD cannot be on equal footing in regards to the WebID spec? >> > >> >There's no reason why WebID-Profile documents MUST be comprised of RDF content in Turtle Notation. > In general, several W3C specs demand the presence of a specific RDF representation. > (Linked Data Platform, R2RML, …) > > Seems indeed quite contradictory… why did we invent RDF in the first place?:-) Exactly the question that hits me in the head every time I look at an RDF language (system of signs, syntax, and semantics) based spec that prefers a specific notation via MUST. > > On the other hand, I see some necessity for interoperability, but still… Interoperability isn't lost via Turtle and JSON-LD support in WebID-* . In fact, we increase interoperability via proper use of RDF and AWWW :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 16:07:02 UTC