[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti-users] Vote NO on JSON - Vote YES on JSON-LD and here is why...
On 24.11.2015 07:51:40, Trey Darley wrote: > On 23.11.2015 22:10:36, Wunder, John A. wrote: > > > > I know I would change my vote if it truly gets to the point where > > support JSON-LD is only a bit more work. > > > > As would I. I have long supported the notion of semantic > representation. But now is the time for pragmatism and progress on the > refactoring effort. > Before anyone misconstrues my words, let me be clear. My vote on the resolution at hand has been cast and I am *not* changing it. But the measure is a non-binding vote. If, by the time we're nearing completion of the ongoing refactoring effort, the JSON-LD crowd can present us with a viable strawman, demonstrate in terms that the *entire community* can *clearly understand* the value that a semantic representation adds, *and* show that this added value can be achieved without imposing a significant burden on implementers who are used to JSON/JSON Schema, then I would be open to reconsidering the MTI question. Convincing the wider community is going to require a good deal more work on the part of the JSON-LD folks than merely reposting the same Slideshare links over and over again. Meanwhile, we have been dickering around far too long. We're settling this question today so we can move forward with more pressing matters. Let us not allow idealistic visions of perfection to consign all our hard efforts to obscurity. -- Cheers, Trey -- Trey Darley Senior Security Engineer 4DAA 0A88 34BC 27C9 FD2B A97E D3C6 5C74 0FB7 E430 Soltra | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company www.soltra.com -- "It is always something." --RFC 1925
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]