Re: JSON-LD requirements

On 7/4/11 12:45 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> I think since we are working towards Linked Data in JSON we should 
> leverage JSONs structural elements and as thus I really think we 
> should stop concentrating on triples.
If you stop thinking about triples (which isn't an RDF invention) you 
are basically throwing out the baby with the bath water re. the 
fundamental goal.

The goal is to use triples a mechanism for "data representation" via 
EAV/SPO graphs.

Triples reflect how we perceive observation subjects via:

1. Subject Name
2. Subject Attributes
3. Subject Attribute Values.

You can effectively describe an observation subject via a graph 
pictorial comprised of Attribute=Value pairs that coalesce around a 
Subject Name. That's what we humans have done for ever. Finally, we've 
found a way to replicate this in digital form en route to making 
computing much more useful that its ever been. Problem is that this 
simple use of triples is now obscured by syntax oriented power grabs 
from a myriad of fronts, net effect: triples is lost, confusion reigns, 
and we continue to focus on the wrong things.

We just want to represent triples in JSON.

Withing the triples we want to have URIs to name subjects, attributes. 
We also want to support attribute values of type: reference.

We want to use URIs for names.

We want URIs to resolve to Representations of their Referents.

This is all achievable in JSON.

The only question that remains: is JSON-LD the spec for this quest? If 
not, then not a problem, but we have to be crystal clear about its goals.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen