Comments (6)
I don't think that an academic-style qualification is sufficient to prevent the statement from having a general connotation. I certainly have difficulties here, as I believe that linked data and RDF are different in just about every way and that it was a grave mistake to not have JSON-LD be called JSON-RDF.
The original definition of JSON-LD was "JSON for Linking Data", and was changed to "A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data". Both are correct, as the intention was to allow JSON to express Linked Data by introducing the ability to use IRIs. But, we became sloppy in our messaging.
I think it's important to keep the distinction between "RDF" the abstract syntax/data model, and "Linked Data" the use pattern for referring to or talking about things on the web. RDF provides a general mechanism for expressing graphs/datasets which can link to other resources on the web. JSON-LD allows JSON to be used for linking to other resources, but is an concrete RDF syntax (it says so in the spec). I'm afraid that this helped start the fuzziness of terminology which has gone on to have a marketing connotation.
I think it's probably bad behavior for W3C to further the conflation of the terminology, and it would be best for the specs that are about data representation and not so much about linking to data on the web, to maintain that distinction.
The fact that RDF has become a term that turns off some communities is unfortunate. We should try to move towards clarity of terminology and say what we mean, not try to massage terminology to satisfy a perceived bias in the target communities and dilute the messaging.
from rch-wg-charter.
I don't think that an academic-style qualification is sufficient to prevent the statement from having a general connotation. I certainly have difficulties here, as I believe that linked data and RDF are different in just about every way and that it was a grave mistake to not have JSON-LD be called JSON-RDF.
from rch-wg-charter.
@pfps, the proposed additional note, in #65 is:
A terminological note: in what follows in this charter, and in the terminology to be used by the Working Group, the term “Linked Data” is used as a synonym to “RDF”.
I.e., we do not say that LD is synonymous with RDF in general. It is restricted to the usages of the terms in the context of this specific work. (I agree with you that such a statement should not be done in general.)
from rch-wg-charter.
it was a grave mistake to not have JSON-LD be called JSON-RDF
I tend to agree with you, @pfps (although I may not qualify as "grave"), but that boat has sailed... And, as I said in the mails, communities use these terms very differently, including some that do not make a difference between LD and RDF :-(
from rch-wg-charter.
I think it would be worth distinguishing the terms Linked Data and RDF, perhaps by saying that RDF is the data model or Abstract Syntax used for describing Linked Data. While Linked Data is data that is expressed in some RDF concrete syntax, which expresses data on the web. The distinction is that RDF is more like a language and Linked Data is something written in that language (using "language" as an abstract concept, not a serialization format).
Just as JSON-LD can be described as a way to use JSON for expressing Linked Data using the RDF data model, Turtle could be described as "a Terse RDF Triple Language for expressing Linked Data".
from rch-wg-charter.
closing this issue. It has become moot with the new focus of this charter on RDF C14N. Neither the charter nor the explainer contain the term "linked data" anymore.
from rch-wg-charter.
Related Issues (20)
- status of [arnold-longley-2020] HOT 19
- how the canonicalization algorithm is chosen HOT 3
- fix HTML title
- AUEB/MMlab supports the W3C LDS WG HOT 3
- Jolocom supports the W3C RCH WG HOT 5
- Create a registry of hash functions HOT 3
- Semmtech supports the W3C RCH WG HOT 4
- Rename "Linked Data Hash" as "RDF Dataset Hash" HOT 1
- Need a glossary for the acronyms the lds-wg-charter HOT 1
- ED of explainer points to charter doc. HOT 1
- W3C Web of Things (WoT) WG supports the W3C LDS WG HOT 8
- Vague mentions of json-ld context work item needs clarification HOT 25
- 3 Round Stones supports the W3C RCH WG HOT 5
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam supports the W3C RCH WG HOT 5
- Coordinate with WebAppSec HOT 6
- Consider defining a canonical serialization to bytes, rather than a hash HOT 5
- Stale expressions of support HOT 1
- quantifier scoping HOT 3
- bad terminology in explainer document HOT 9
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from rch-wg-charter.