- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:49:15 +0100
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl, Frederik Byl <frederik.byl@gmail.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
ex: cannot be undefined if you want to read that data with any compliant RDF software because RDF triples can only contain absolute URIs. On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 8:37 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 19:57, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com> wrote: >> >> Melvin, >> >> > Very important thing here about "ex:" >> > >> > You've actually just made this data into a silo >> > >> > With my example "name" in one JSON document is "name" in another JSON document >> > >> > That is to say, JSON sent from one machine to another remains stable >> > >> > In your example, every different document will have a different namespace, depending on what 'ex:' is defined as, and whether it's absolute or relative. In this case I assume it's relative >> > >> > This actually guarantees that the data does NOT interoperate. Whereas if we'd standarized (or can still standardize) the semantic web on JSON with URLs and optionally vocabs, all different aspects interoperate as and when you need them to >> > >> >> With respect, you might know how to build JSON-driven software, but >> what you described here is an example of how *not* to build RDF-driven >> software. Of course vocabularies are standardized to communicate >> shared meaning. > > > Please, be specific > > ex: in the example above is undefined > > That actually prohibits a shared understanding > > JSON keys OTOH are simply JSON keys and can be compared character for character > > JSON is actually a super set of JSON-LD so it can, by definition, handle every RDF use case and every JSON use case. Developers simply pick the right tool for the right job. >
Received on Monday, 14 February 2022 19:54:55 UTC