ISSUE-132: JSON-LD should be more closely aligned with RDF
LC2 - Booth/Patel-Schneider - JSON-LD/RDF Alignment
JSON-LD should be more closely aligned with RDF
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- JSON-LD Last Call 2
- Raised by:
- Manu Sporny
- Opened on:
- 2013-05-21
- Description:
- Change requests by David Booth for JSON-LD:
1. Insert "based on RDF" to the definition of Linked Data, as explained
above.
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
semantics.
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 - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: Second official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from sven.kunze@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de on 2013-08-14)
- [RESOLVED] Re: Second official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-08-13)
- Second official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2013-08-12)
- JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2013-08-06 (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2013-08-06)
- Intent to close ISSUE-222 (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-07-23)
- JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2013-07-16 (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2013-07-16)
- Re: Updated JSON-LD spec to more closely align w/ RDF data model (RDF-ISSUE-132) (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2013-07-10)
- RE: Updated JSON-LD spec to more closely align w/ RDF data model (RDF-ISSUE-132) (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-07-10)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2013-06-12)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2013-06-12)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-12)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from danbri@danbri.org on 2013-06-12)
- Re: when to de-Skolemize; was Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-11)
- when to de-Skolemize; was Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF (from sandro@w3.org on 2013-06-11)
- RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-06-11)
- RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-06-11)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-06-11)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-11)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF (from sandro@w3.org on 2013-06-11)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the relationship between JSON-LD and RDF (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-11)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-10)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2013-06-10)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2013-06-10)
- Re: Agenda: JSON-LD Telecon - Tuesday, June 11th 2013 (from gregg@greggkellogg.net on 2013-06-10)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-06-10)
- RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-06-10)
- RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-06-10)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from ansell.peter@gmail.com on 2013-06-10)
- RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-06-10)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2013-06-09)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-09)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (from gregg@greggkellogg.net on 2013-06-09)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment -- Sub-issue on the re-definition of Linked Data (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-09)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-09)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-09)
- RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-06-09)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from ansell.peter@gmail.com on 2013-06-09)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2013-06-08)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2013-06-08)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2013-06-08)
- RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-06-08)
- RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-06-08)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-08)
- RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-06-08)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-08)
- RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-06-08)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from zazi@smiy.org on 2013-06-08)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2013-06-08)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2013-06-08)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from sven.kunze@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de on 2013-06-08)
- RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-06-08)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-07)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from zazi@smiy.org on 2013-06-07)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2013-06-06)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-06-06)
- Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from ansell.peter@gmail.com on 2013-05-22)
- Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2013-05-21)
- JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2013-05-21 (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2013-05-21)
- RDF-ISSUE-132 (LC2 - Booth - JSON-LD/RDF Alignment): JSON-LD should be more closely aligned with RDF [JSON-LD Last Call 2] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-05-21)
Related notes:
The thread started here:
https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/222
Official response here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013May/0154.html
Request for more alignment by Peter Patel-Schneider and edits made to the spec:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0233.html
Peter Patel-Schneider's concerns have been addressed:
http://www.w3.org/mid/51DD8897.3040404%2540gmail.com
Display change log