Make link to RDF more apparent in the specification #180

Closed
msporny opened this Issue Nov 1, 2012 · 12 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@msporny
Owner

msporny commented Nov 1, 2012

The following specific change was requested by @prototypo in May/June 2012 and again at the last RDF WG Face to Face meeting:

[The JSON-LD Syntax specification] must mention RDF up front and somewhere later the details must make it clear that JSON-LD is a legitimate serialization of the RDF data model.

We would be able to do this in the introduction, and possibly in the abstract.

@lanthaler

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@lanthaler

lanthaler Nov 1, 2012

Member

I would be certainly fine with doing that in the introduction, less so in the abstract. I would also like to see the RDF WG put somewhere in RDF Concepts a statement that IRIs SHOULD be dereferenceable (or at least a formal RECOMMENDED). Without that, RDF is just as much Linked Data as XML namespaces are. I will send a mail regarding that to the RDF WG mailing list shortly..

Member

lanthaler commented Nov 1, 2012

I would be certainly fine with doing that in the introduction, less so in the abstract. I would also like to see the RDF WG put somewhere in RDF Concepts a statement that IRIs SHOULD be dereferenceable (or at least a formal RECOMMENDED). Without that, RDF is just as much Linked Data as XML namespaces are. I will send a mail regarding that to the RDF WG mailing list shortly..

@prototypo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@prototypo

prototypo Nov 1, 2012

Hi Markus,

Thanks regarding the Introduction. As for the IRI SHOULD, could you please raise an ISSUE on the Concepts spec instead of just sending an email? Thanks.

Regards,
Dave

On Nov 1, 2012, at 10:18, Markus Lanthaler notifications@github.com wrote:

I would be certainly fine with doing that in the introduction, less so in the abstract. I would also like to see the RDF WG put somewhere in RDF Concepts a statement that IRIs SHOULD be dereferenceable (or at least a formal RECOMMENDED). Without that, RDF is just as much Linked Data as XML namespaces are. I will send a mail regarding that to the RDF WG mailing list shortly..

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

Hi Markus,

Thanks regarding the Introduction. As for the IRI SHOULD, could you please raise an ISSUE on the Concepts spec instead of just sending an email? Thanks.

Regards,
Dave

On Nov 1, 2012, at 10:18, Markus Lanthaler notifications@github.com wrote:

I would be certainly fine with doing that in the introduction, less so in the abstract. I would also like to see the RDF WG put somewhere in RDF Concepts a statement that IRIs SHOULD be dereferenceable (or at least a formal RECOMMENDED). Without that, RDF is just as much Linked Data as XML namespaces are. I will send a mail regarding that to the RDF WG mailing list shortly..

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@lanthaler

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@lanthaler

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@lanthaler

lanthaler Nov 7, 2012

Member

PROPOSAL: Add a statement in the introduction of the JSON-LD syntax specification saying that JSON-LD is a legitimate serialization of the RDF data model.

Member

lanthaler commented Nov 7, 2012

PROPOSAL: Add a statement in the introduction of the JSON-LD syntax specification saying that JSON-LD is a legitimate serialization of the RDF data model.

@gkellogg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@gkellogg

gkellogg Nov 7, 2012

Owner

+1, but without "legitimate"

Owner

gkellogg commented Nov 7, 2012

+1, but without "legitimate"

@msporny

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@msporny

msporny Nov 7, 2012

Owner

+1, but without "legitimate"

Owner

msporny commented Nov 7, 2012

+1, but without "legitimate"

@prototypo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@prototypo

prototypo Nov 7, 2012

No objection from me.

Regards,
Dave

On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:14, Manu Sporny notifications@github.com wrote:

+1, but without "legitimate"


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

No objection from me.

Regards,
Dave

On Nov 7, 2012, at 10:14, Manu Sporny notifications@github.com wrote:

+1, but without "legitimate"


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@cygri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@cygri

cygri Nov 7, 2012

Should probably be specific about whether it's a syntax for RDF graphs or RDF datasets (or both), so this may have a dependency on #183.

cygri commented Nov 7, 2012

Should probably be specific about whether it's a syntax for RDF graphs or RDF datasets (or both), so this may have a dependency on #183.

@niklasl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@niklasl

niklasl Nov 12, 2012

Member

+1, but without "legitimate". Also agree that the graph vs. dataset issue needs to be solved.

Member

niklasl commented Nov 12, 2012

+1, but without "legitimate". Also agree that the graph vs. dataset issue needs to be solved.

@cygri

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@cygri

cygri Nov 13, 2012

+1. As I said, #183 needs to be resolved, but this doesn't actually block this issue.

cygri commented Nov 13, 2012

+1. As I said, #183 needs to be resolved, but this doesn't actually block this issue.

@lanthaler

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@lanthaler

lanthaler Nov 13, 2012

Member

RESOLVED: Add a statement in the introduction of the JSON-LD syntax specification saying that JSON-LD is a serialization of the RDF data model.

Member

lanthaler commented Nov 13, 2012

RESOLVED: Add a statement in the introduction of the JSON-LD syntax specification saying that JSON-LD is a serialization of the RDF data model.

lanthaler added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 4, 2012

Add statement in the introduction of the syntax spec that JSON-LD is …
…a serialization for RDF graphs and datasets

This addresses #180.
@lanthaler

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@lanthaler

lanthaler Dec 4, 2012

Member

I added the statement to the spec. Unless I hear objections I will close this issue in 24 hours.

Member

lanthaler commented Dec 4, 2012

I added the statement to the spec. Unless I hear objections I will close this issue in 24 hours.

@lanthaler lanthaler closed this Dec 5, 2012

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment