W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > May 2012

Re: The rdf:JSONLiteral datatype

From: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 21:12:04 +0200
Message-ID: <4FB54D84.7050609@wp.pl>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
On 17.05.2012 20:56, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 17 May 2012, at 19:46, Dominik Tomaszuk wrote:
>>>    What is the use case for this datatype?
>> Repository of access control, where we store ACLs in JSON for RDF data.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to define a my:JSON_ACL datatype for your specific JSON format?
That's what I do now.

>
>>>    Are there examples of systems that currently use JSON literals in RDF literals?
>> Mine :-) . It is only prototype, I don't publish it yet. It's part of my Ph.D. thesis.
>>
>>>    Are there examples of currently published RDF data that use such JSON literals?
>> For example ACLs.
>
> Well, that's a start, but the existence of a single prototype system that might benefit from this feature doesn't create a very strong case for including it yet.
Agree.

>
>>>    Why isn't xsd:string sufficient for representing JSON literals?
>> Well, it is close to approach XMLLiteral. Most of the cases for the XML xsd:string is sufficient, but it is in spec.
>
> The motivating use case for rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:HTML is including text markup in literals. In these cases, xsd:string is not sufficient because display engines need to know whether the string is to be interpreted literally or as marked up text.
But in JSON case there are the same arguments. JSON is data 
serialization oriented markup language and engines need to know whether 
the string is to be interpreted literally or parsed like JSON.

>
>>>    Given that anyone can define new RDF datatypes, why should RDF-WG do it?
>> Because JSON like XML and HTML is universal and common. There are a lot of solutions based on the JSON, which can be mixed with RDF in future.
>
> Well, CSS and Javascript and CSV and lots of other formats are universal and common, and have lots of solutions based on them. But this doesn't mean that RDF-WG should define datatypes for them.
Agree. CSS and Javascript aren't neet to be RDF datatypes. But CSV (and 
TSV) could be considered.

Cheers,
Dominik

>
> Best,
> Richard
>
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 19:12:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 May 2012 19:12:31 GMT