On 06/18/2013 01:42 AM, エリクソン トーレ wrote:
One could argue that these examples, while not being RDF, still adhere to the RDF abstract syntax (triples describing typed directed relationships between resource).
But that's what RDF *is* -- the abstract syntax. RDF is syntax independent.
Here's the first way (plain 'ol JSON object): { "id": "http://example.com/people/luca";, "type": "http://schema.org/Person";, "name": "Luca Matteis" } The document above is interpreted as Linked Data using the following rules: 1. The thing you're talking about is identified via 'id'. 2. The type of the thing you're talking about is identified via 'type'. 3. All keys, except for 'id' and 'type', are appended to 'type''s value, with a '/' separator. That's Linked Data. It has no formal relationship to RDF.The three rules could be seen as a simple GRDDL-like specification. Applying them will give you a subset of RDF (no blank nodes?).
Except that they are not standards-based. :( So there is no way for a client to reliably interpret them as RDF without some kind of out-of-band or private information.
David
