W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > May 2013

Fwd: Fwd: RDF/JSON

From: Martin Nally <martin.nally@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 23:28:25 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHJqhR75ztTQ7iQuL6BS1WnpFr274Pbqz4jNQkoqW281BZojzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
Rats, I forgot to copy the mailing list again

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martin Nally <martin.nally@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: RDF/JSON
To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>


>> You'll need some validation code somewhere.

Yes, good point, Dave. As I said in a previous email, we have about 200
lines of helper functions that we use with RDF/JSON. That doesn't quite
meet my zero time/size criteria which I admit were exaggerated, but still
the heavy lifting is done by JSON and the language run-times, and what we
have to do is much less.


>> For instance, if you did use JSON-LD, maybe you'd only accept flattened
form.

Yes, indeed, and as I said in my previous note, we started by using what
JSON-LD calls "expanded" format (more exactly a kind of hybrid between
expanded and framed). This worked OK, although RDF/JSON works even better.
Whether we were really using JSON-LD is arguable, since we only supported a
very specific and limited JSON-LD format. What we accepted was valid
JSON-LD, but it is not obvious to me what the value is in being able to
make that claim, since the amount of JSON-LD we supported is much less than
the amount we did not. With RDF/JSON, we didn't have to make any such
restrictions.


>> Plus, when I wanted to, I got to use all of the JSON-LD features that
make programming against generic in-memory objects *far* more natural

I assume then that you implemented a much more substantial amount of
JSON-LD than we have. I'm not sure this really has much to do with JSON-LD
- there are lots of programmer-friendly functions we could wrap around
RDF/JSON too. We haven't done this, partly for lack of time and effort, but
also because I'm a passionate minimalist. The only good code is the code
that isn't there (another hyperbole, but again with a core of truth, IMO).

Regards, Martin


On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>wrote:

> On 04/30/2013 07:12 PM, Martin Nally wrote:
>
>> For RDF-aware people, JSON-LD is also annoying - it is much more
>> difficult to parse than simple RDF/JSON. If every programming language had
>> a JSON-LD library that had no bugs, loaded in zero time, took zero space
>> and had an API everyone loved, this might not be an issue, but those things
>> are not true.
>>
>
> That sounds like any unreasonable list of requirements for any technology.
>
> Also, keep in mind that parsing RDF/JSON is not as simple as JSON.parse().
> That doesn't necessarily yield valid RDF/JSON, for instance:
> JSON.parse({"i": {"am": "invalid RDF/JSON"}}). You'll need some validation
> code somewhere. Does every programming language have an RDF/JSON validation
> library that has no bugs, loads in zero time, takes zero space, and has an
> API that everyone loves? Did you check Sartre? :)
>
> Instead, maybe all you need is a decent RDF/JSON validation library for
> every programming language that your system is using or intends to
> (reasonably) interoperate with. Even that might not be necessary, if you
> have clients that only transmit data and deal with HTTP response status
> codes. Of course, if you were in this position, then you could use any
> serialization format that met these same requirements. The only question is
> what you get for free and what you don't (and how important those things
> are) -- and that may just be determined by how you decide to model your
> data.
>
> Since this is your system, you can also decide what restrictions you want
> to place on the data. For instance, if you did use JSON-LD, maybe you'd
> only accept flattened form. Then you could use a validator for that instead
> of RDF/JSON. Any data you exported would still be fully interoperable with
> anyone who could accept JSON-LD. You'd have the same restrictions your
> system has right now with RDF/JSON -- in that that's the only thing you can
> accept (JSON formatted in a specific way). You could also model your data
> using JSON-LD's @index feature or create simple subject maps for your data
> when it's received, if that's something you want.
>
> Anyway, my point is that some of what you said came across as a bit
> hyperbolic; I don't think using JSON-LD instead of RDF/JSON is actually as
> annoying as you make it out to be. From my perspective it seems more like
> this sort of feeling: "Bummer, I wanted the data keyed by subject. Now I'll
> have to write a function or use a common-place tool or a feature of JSON-LD
> to do that for me."
>
> I've had that same thought and have had to do it in practice. It wasn't
> that bad. Plus, when I wanted to, I got to use all of the JSON-LD features
> that make programming against generic in-memory objects *far* more natural,
> like using dot-notation, short keys, and arrays instead of bracket-syntax,
> IRIs, and linked lists.
>
> --
> Dave Longley
> CTO
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2013 03:28:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:56 UTC