W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > August 2011

Fwd: JSON Emergency Brake

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:51:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM=Pv=RtNX441KfAw+jpTGSZenuP+MGiC20ffvjBjSWwa5uq3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
originally sent in response to Thomas' post -

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Aug/0131.html

Thomas suggested bringing the detailed discussion back over here.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: 24 August 2011 01:20
Subject: Re: JSON Emergency Brake
To: tomac@google.com, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>,
ian.davis@talis.com, ivan@w3.org, Michael Hausenblas
<michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, jeremy@topquadrant.com


[offlist, I'm not in the wg]

The relative size of target audience of JSON-LD (Web developers who
use JSON) compared with that of RDF/JSON (RDF developers who want
JSON) does suggest the former is the priority.

But if RDF/JSON is to be abandoned, then JSON-LD should be able to act
as a substitute - i.e. round-tripping of RDF must be possible and
mapping(s) provided in the spec. (I believe things are inclined this
way already, but I'm not sure it's in the charter).

Whether RDF/JSON continues or not, if JSON-LD is to be attractive to a
broad range of non-RDF-oriented developers, it should be a reasonably
simple syntax. As it stands I believe the inclusion of CURIES is an
unnecessary complication. The use of simple name/IRI mapping in
@context should be enough. Yes, it will get verbose if a large number
of terms is needed in a single document, but I doubt very much that
would be the norm among the target audience. (An @vocab mechanism is
also mentioned in the spec, though I'm not sure if that's current or
orphaned artifacts of a previous draft). Whatever, having a raft of
different syntactical ways of saying the same thing looks very like a
repeat of RDF/XML. Also I wouldn't be surprised to see antagonism from
some in the HTML community simply because CURIES resemble XML
namespaces.

(I mentioned this to Manu in G+, can't find the thread - he defended
CURIES in JSON-LD because his own application needed vast amounts of
markup without them)

Cheers,
Danny.

--
http://dannyayers.com



-- 
http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 19:52:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:35 GMT