Hi Jeff,
I guess I could have said *concrete*-syntax-independent to be more
precise -- to distinguish it from the *abstract* syntax (or model) --
but "serialization-independent" works too. Or "format-independent".
David
On 06/19/2013 09:55 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
David,
I think you've confused syntax-independence with
serialization-independence. RDF is syntax-dependent. The syntax is
triples. OTOH, triple syntax can be serialized in a wide variety of
ways.
Jeff
-----Original Message----- From: David Booth
[mailto:da...@dbooth.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:42 PM
To: Luca Matteis Cc: Kingsley Idehen; Linked Data community
Subject: Re: Proof: Linked Data does not require RDF
Can you please then setup a pool asking "Does creating and
publishing Linked Data require knowledge of RDF?"
I would be willing to make such a poll if it seemed that people
wanted it, but I don't think it is necessary. There are *many*
document formats that can carry RDF, and it seems self-evident that
someone who publishes an RDF-interpretable format like JSON-LD or
(GRDDL-enabled) XML may not understand RDF **at all**. This is one
of the great benefits of RDF being syntax independent. The JSON-LD
group understood this very well and did a great job crafting the
JSON-LD spec to ensure that web developers would *not* have to
understand RDF in order to happily publish their JSON-LD.
If the data is *interpretable* as RDF, then who cares whether the
publisher understood RDF? It seems irrelevant to me.
David
