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

Public feedback on RDF/JSON: Proposal to align w/ W3C RDF/XML

From: Damian Gessler <dgessler@iplantcollaborative.org>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 17:10:44 -0600
Message-ID: <51956774.2050005@iplantcollaborative.org>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
This is discussion is long, but hopefully offers constructive comment 
for RDF/JSON. It is submitted as an email per directions at 

The model proposed here addresses untyped literals, typed literals, 
resources (URIs and bnodes), QNames (including reserved prefixes, 
user-defined prefixes, and a default namespace), preservation of XML 
encoding information, type declarations, comments, short-circuit 
parsing, and both aggregate and disbursed subject blocks. It does so 
with a "natural" reading of the resultant JSON that yields similarities 
to both N3 and RDF/XML. It is designed to be informationally lossless 
with respect to both RDF and RDF/XML, and can be used either as a pure 
RDF serialization independent of RDF/XML, or as a streaming 
transliteration on the large extant repository of legacy RDF/XML 
documents on the Web.

We begin simply and pedagogically, but things will speed up:

1. We ask rhetorically what we are trying to achieve with RDF/JSON. We 
begin with an immediate and simple JSON serialization for RDF: a 
serialization that preserves the core and fundamental data model of RDF 
(the S,P,O triple) while adding little else; viz:

   [ "S", "P", "O" ],
   [ "S", "P", "O" ],

Where S is the Subject, P is the Predicate (or Property), and O is the 
Object. This simple serialization can be expanded to support literal 
datatypes in a number of ways; e.g.:

   [ "S", "P", "L" ],
   [ "S", "P", { "L" : "D" } ],
   [ "S", "P", { "R" : {} } ],

for RDF Objects L (Literal) (and datatype D) and R (Resource) (URI or 
bnode). There are also other minor variants and syntaxes that could 
differentiate between untyped literals, typed literals, and resources.

We will reject this serialization per se; but it is important to offer 
it as a "null model" because that forces us to be explicit as to why 
another serialization with necessarily overloaded semantics is preferable.

Clearly, by not stopping at this immediate and natural JSON 
serialization of triples, the vision of RDF/JSON must be either 
implicitly, or explicitly, something other than just serializing RDF 
into JSON.

By presenting a data model of:

{ "S" : { "P" : { "O" : [ ... ] } }

RDF/JSON shows that it prioritizes a subject-oriented data structure of 
the underlying RDF data model in achieving its JSON serialization. This 
elegant, natural, data model has similarities to the use and adoption of 
N3 over N-Triples.

2. We note that the goal of RDF/JSON cannot be interpreted as to 
translate legacy JSON -> RDF. This is because the semantics of any 
arbitrary, legacy, JSON document do not map to the semantics of 
RDF/JSON. For example, JSON arrays do not map to RDF List 
constructs--and indeed, nor should they, for an array is not a list 
(though in many cases it can be interpreted as such). Also, RDF/JSON 
introduces reserved keys ("type", "value", "lang", "datatype") that have 
implied semantics on the resultant de-serialized data models that are 
not recognized as such in JSON. This is not to say that one could not 
read legacy JSON, build an in-memory data model, and output RDF/JSON; it 
is to say that such an operation (arbitrary, legacy JSON -> RDF -> 
RDF/JSON) is outside both the goals and spec of RDF/JSON. For JSON -> 
RDF, see JSON-LD [1].

Thus the perspective of RDF/JSON is focused on RDF -> JSON, while 
leveraging some of the JSON data modeling constructs. The W3C recommend 
serialization for RDF is RDF/XML [2]. There is a large legacy presence 
of RDF/XML documents on the Web, especially for OWL. Thus a desirable 
characteristic of a JSON serialization would be the informationally 
lossless transformation of RDF/XML -> JSON. This becomes a key guide for 
the following discussion. While RDF/JSON can position itself as solely a 
RDF serialization independent of others, distinct, and separate from 
RDF/XML, this is perhaps a missed opportunity.

Alternatively, RDF/JSON could position itself as an RDF -> JSON 
serialization that builds upon, and is receptive to, informationally 
lossless transliterations of the already-recommended W3C serialization 
for RDF: RDF/XML. The motivation is that such an approach builds a suite 
of complementary W3C technologies, including various serializations, 
rather than a merely a collection of competing formats. Of course, 
RDF/JSON should also be able to stand separate and independent of 
RDF/XML, such that one could go RDF -> RDF/JSON -> RDF without any 
serialization through RDF/XML. Thus we seek both worlds.

Currently, RDF/JSON is not informationally lossless with respect to 
RDF/XML; we note a number of difficulties:

2a. QNames. RDF/JSON does not support QNames [3]. This presumably could 
be addressed by adding semantics on how to serialize prefixes. If 
RDF/JSON chooses not to support QNames then it can be still said to be 
informationally lossless with respect to RDF, but it cannot be said to 
be informationally lossless with respect to RDF/XML. This would seem to 
be an undesirable and unnecessary limitation.

2b. Serializing. RDF/JSON binds all of a Subject's predicates, and all 
and each of those Predicates' Objects into a single, compound JSON 
object. Yet RDF/XML does not require that all statements about a Subject 
be together or in any one place in the document, and RDF does not 
require this generically for serialization. Thus RDF/JSON cannot be 
implemented as a streaming syntactical re-serializer directly on 
RDF/XML: RDF/JSON must have knowledge of the entire RDF data model, such 
as to know all of a Subject's predicates and their objects, before it 
can serialize even the first subject. This is somewhat unfortunate, 
since we would like a serialization spec to be independent of 
implementation algorithms, be they streaming or "DOM"-based. RDF/JSON's 
requirement that "S" be unique (for each unique Subject) is forced upon 
it by JSON's requirement that all keys in a JSON object be unique (but 
see below).

2c. Parsing. RDF/JSON imposes a data model outside of RDF proper, which 
limits the utility of the serialization. But it is fair to say it also 
enhances the utility of the serialization: there is a trade-off. The 
elegance and "naturalness" of RDF/JSON's { "S" : { "P" : [ "O" ] } } 
model necessarily clusters statements about Subjects, while disbursing 
statements about Predicates and Objects throughout the document. I call 
this the "phone book" problem, where the chosen serialization of the 
producer limits the utility available to the consumer, even though the 
consumer "has all the data." In the "old days," phone books were 
distributed as serialized name:number pairs, sorted by name, printed on 
paper. The sorting produced essentially an array, such that one could 
use an approximate binary search to find a name amongst a million 
entries in a matter of seconds. The data producer (the phone company) 
gave the consumer both name and number, and at some level did not care 
whether the consumer was interested in the name, number, or both. But 
the serialization essentially forced the consumer to accept name:number 
ordered-pairs; the sorting and serialization on name biased against 
number:name utility. A separate serialization (called a reverse-lookup) 
was needed if one had a number and wanted to find its associated name. 
These books were usually hard to find. What is relevant here is not the 
old days of phone books, but to note that RDF has no such restriction. 
RDF does not bias Subjects over Objects, or Objects over Predicates, 
etc. One of the benefits of the RDF/JSON modeling is that once one is 
done processing a Subject, one is guaranteed that no more syntactic 
statements about the Subject (as a Subject, and as identified lexically 
by its key [i.e., not addressing the semantics of owl:sameAs]) shall be 
made. Thus unlike RDF/XML, a streaming parser can be implemented for 
RDF/JSON such that further processing of a document stream can be 
abandoned prior to the entire document being processed. I call this 
"short-circuit" parsing. But this comes at the cost that the RDF/JSON 
model limits the utility of the data when not consumed as intended, and 
in this case the "intent" is set not by the producer, but by RDF/JSON 
itself. One could say that RDF/JSON benefits the parser at the expense 
of the serializer.

2d. RDF/JSON has no mechanism to retain comments ex situ of RDF (e.g., 
RDF/XML XML comments [<!-- -->]). This is made difficult due to JSON's 
lack of support for embedded comments.

The proposal below addresses the above issues while keeping very much in 
the flavor of RDF/JSON's { "S" : { "P" : [ "O" ] } } model. It is 
informationally lossless with respect to both RDF and RDF/XML (supports 
QNames and comments); it supports streaming serialization (e.g., as a 
syntactical transliterator on streaming RDF/XML); and it supports 
streaming parsing of its own serialization.

The proposal is quite simple and contains two "forms":

Form 1. Guarantee that all statements about a Subject are localized in 
the document, thus supporting short-circuit parsing. Short-circuit 
guarantees are "communicated" to the parser by virtue of an opening JSON 
object. A parser is guaranteed that all keys of a JSON object are 
unique, thus when it "sees" a JSON object, it "knows" that all 
statements about the key are localized to the JSON object.

Form 1 is very similar in structure to RDF/JSON.

1a. Simple, untyped literals:

   "S" : { "P" : "L" }


   "http://example.org/about" :
     { "http://purl.org/dc/terms/title" : "Anna's Homepage" }

   "http://example.org/about" : {
     "http://purl.org/dc/terms/title" : [ "Anna's Homepage", "Annas 
hjemmeside" ],
     "http://anotherUniqueProperty/p" : "L"

JSON array [] constructs are required for the Object only as needed. 
This differs from RDF/JSON which requires Object array constructs even 
in cases of there being only a single Object. JSON imposes no unique 
value restriction for array elements.

Example 1a.i shows that simple statements are "simply" serialized. The 
examples below will show that more complex statements are built from the 
application of simple rules.

Example 1a.ii shows JSON arrays as RDF Objects to package multiple 
property instances and values.

1b. Typed Literals. We note from RDF/XML that datatypes on literals are 
attributes on the Predicates (not on the literals themselves). In a 
similar manner, typed literals do not have a language, per se [4]: a 
language qualifier is on the Predicate. Thus we here make a simple 
extension that allows use to replace the literal "L" with an JSON object 
{} to capture arbitrary RDF/XML attribute data, with special semantics 
for "rdf:value"; i.e.:

1b. Typed literals:

   "S" : { "P" : {
     "rdf:value" : "L",
     "rdf:datatype" : "D",


   "http://example.org/about" : {
     "http://purl.org/dc/terms/title" : {
       "rdf:value" : "Annas hjemmeside",
       "rdf:datatype" : "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string",
       "xml:lang" : "da"

Here, rdf:value is akin to RDF/JSON "value." It and it alone is NOT an 
attribute on the Predicate (it is the "text content" of the equivalent 
XML element), but all other key:value pairs are interpreted as Predicate 
attributes. rdf:datatype is akin to RDF/JSON's "datatype," but there is 
no need to introduce a new and reserved key word: the RDF/XML attribute 
assumes the role immediately.

This simple form--that RDF Objects are JSON Objects with a syntactical 
placement of RDF/XML attributes--yields an immediate and consistent 
extension for Objects as resources (URIs and bnodes):

1c. Objects as resources (URIs and bnodes):

   "S" : { "P" :
       "rdf:resource" : "O",

Compound example:

   "http://example.org/about" : {

     "http://purl.org/dc/terms/title" : [

       "Anna's Homepage",

         "rdf:value" : "Annas hjemmeside",
         "rdf:datatype" : "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string",
         "xml:lang" : "da"
       } ],

       "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage" : { "rdf:resource" : 
"http://example.org/anna" },

       "http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator" : "_:anna"


At first it may not seem that the above proposal differs much in 
substance from RDF/JSON, but it does in a number of ways. It retains the 
essence of { "S" : { "P" : "O" } } model, but simplifies the 
serialization for simple cases, and aligns more complex cases with a 
transliteration of RDF/XML attributes. This requires no actual knowledge 
of RDF as a re-serializer.

The model also lends itself "naturally" to QName support [3], thus 
becoming closer to being informationally lossless with respect to 
RDF/XML. We support Qnames by noting the "xmlns" attribute on the 
rdf:RDF "Subject"; viz.:


   "rdf:RDF" : {

       "xmlns:rdf"  : "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
       "xmlns:xsd"  : "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#",

       "xmlns:"     : "http://example.org/",
       "xmlns:dc"   : "http://purl.org/dc/terms/",
       "xmlns:foaf" : "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1"

   ":about" : {

We bootstrap the definition of the rdf: namespace within the rdf:RDF 
construct. We make the implicit assumption that the token "rdf:RDF" can 
never itself be the valid Subject of a user-defined payload--a topic we 
discuss further in section 4. below.

We can achieve a slight clean-up in presentation by recognizing "xmlns" 
as a keyword, but we do this only as "syntactical sugar" on the 
underlying model of XML attributes on Subject entries; e.g.:

     "xmlns" : {
       ""     : "http://example.org/",
       "dc"   : "http://purl.org/dc/terms/",
       "foaf" : "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1"

   ":about" : {

RDF requires that all Subjects are resources: either URIs or bnodes. 
Resources can be lexically written in four variants:

Absolute URIs; e.g., http://example.org/about, urn:example:about
QName with prefix (namespace); e.g., dc:title
QName with reserved underscore (_) for bnode; e.g., _:anna
QName with user-defined default namespace; e.g., ":myTerm"

Notably, RDF does not allow relative URIs for Subjects or Predicates 
[5]. Thus "a", "5", "a/b/c", are all valid (relative) URIs, but are 
lexically illegal as RDF Subjects. Thus we note that lexically, all 
valid Subjects and Predicates necessarily always contain a colon (:). 
Thus we can unambiguously allow the keyword "xmlns" (or "@xmlns") to 
appear in the "S" place and overload it with special meaning as a 
document directive. In a similar manner we can use "?xml" to preserve 
record of the XML document encoding that may appear on the first line of 
an RDF/XML document. In so doing we are not stating that 'this' document 
has the encoding; we are stating that this document, if transliterated 
from, or to, XML, has the encoding:


     "?xml" : {
       "version" : "1.0",
       "encoding" : "UTF-8"

     "xmlns" : {
       "rdf"  : "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
       "xsd"  : "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#",
       ""     : "http://example.org/",
       "dc"   : "http://purl.org/dc/terms/",
       "foaf" : "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1"

   ":about" : {

     "dc:title" : [
       "Anna's Homepage",
         "rdf:value" : "Annas hjemmeside",
         "rdf:datatype" : "xsd:string",
         "xml:lang" : "da"
       } ],

       "foaf:homepage" : { "rdf:resource" : ":anna" },

       "dc:creator" : "_:anna"


   "_:anna" : {
     "foaf:name" : "Anna",
     "foaf:homepage" : { "rdf:resource" : "http://example.org/anna" }

Note in the above the use of (source) doc encoding, prefixes, default 
namespace, QNames, absolute URIs, bnodes, untyped literals, and typed 
literals. This could have been serialized from an RDF data model, or 
transliterated syntactically from RDF/XML. Our rules are still simple 
and consistent: almost the same as RDF/JSON, with the extension that 
object "metadata" is analogous to RDF/XML attributes and bundled inside 
a JSON object using existing rdf: namespace predicates.

Form 2. Support the disbursement of statements throughout a document, 
for example as applicable when stream transliterating RDF/XML -> JSON. 
This currently cannot be done in RDF/JSON, but is quite simple to do:


   { "?xml" : {
       "version" : "1.0",
       "encoding" : "UTF-8"

   { "xmlns" : {
       "rdf"  : "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
       "xsd"  : "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#",
       ""     : "http://example.org/",
       "dc"   : "http://purl.org/dc/terms/",
       "foaf" : "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1"

   { ":about" :
       "dc:title" : "Anna's Homepage",
       "dc:creator" : "_:anna"

   { "_:anna" : {
     "foaf:name" : "Anna",
     "foaf:homepage" : { "rdf:resource" : "http://example.org/anna" }

   { ":about" : {
     "dc:title" : {
         "rdf:value" : "Annas hjemmeside",
         "rdf:datatype" : "xsd:string",
         "xml:lang" : "da"
     "foaf:homepage" : { "rdf:resource" : ":anna" }


(Note the repetition of :about). All the previous rules apply. We simply 
note that { "S" : { "P" : "O" } } used in the earlier examples was just 
a simplification of a larger, more encompassing model: [ { "S" : { "P" : 
"O" } }, { "S" : { "P" : "O" } }, ... ]. This reads "naturally:" an 
array of JSON objects, each making statements about an RDF Subject, with 
no restriction that successive Subjects be unique (Because each is 
enclosed in its own {} construct). The embracing opening and closing 
JSON array [] construct (Form 2) "communicates" the chosen serialization 
to the parser that it may NOT now assume that all statements about a 
given Subject are known, until it processes through the End-Of-File. If 
the serializer chooses to group all statements for all subjects (Form 
1), then it can easily do this too by not using the opening JSON array 
[] construct and building JSON objects per the earlier examples above. 
Thus the "spec" does not bais towards parsers or serializers (it lets 
the producer decide). The spec supports short-circuiting for both 
streaming serializers and streaming parsers: just write/read the first 
non-whitespace character as a '[' or '{' and proceed accordingly.

3. RDF/XML has short-hand notation for rdf:type statements that allows 
concise "declarations" at the beginning of a document. These 
declarations can aid parsers. For example, OWL models can be aided by 
knowing if a property is an owl:ObjectProperty or an 
owl:DatatypeProperty when it is first *used* (i.e., when it first occurs 
as a resource in a statement). Because the serialization of RDF does not 
place restrictions on the ordering within a document of resource 
definitions and type statements, a predicate's use may precede its 
declaration and definition (if any). The RDF/XML "declaration" 
short-hand looks like this:

<owl:Class rdf:about="http://mySite.org/MyClass"/>
<mySite:MyClass rdf:about="http://mySite.org/MyThing"/>
<owl:DatatypeProperty rdf:about="http://mySite.org/myDatatypeProperty"/>

and is semantically equivalent to more verbose rdf:type statements about 
each of the resources.

Now note that the { "S" : { "P" : "O" } } construct leaves two other 
constructs undefined; namely:

   { "S" : "T" } and
   { "S" : [ "T", ... ] }

   where "T" is some text (a string).

Thus we can define the use of these constructs to support concise 
rdf:type declarations in a manner similar to RDF/XML:

   "owl:Class" : "mySite:myClass",
   "mySite:MyClass" : "mySite:myThing",
   "owl:DatatypeProperty" : [ "mySite:myDatatypeProperty", 
"mySite:myOtherDatatypeProperty" ]

The meaning of the above is that the JSON objects (or array elements) 
are each rdf:type of the JSON subject. There is no ambiguity in how to 
interpret the above because none of the constructs are of the form "S" : 
{ ... }. This aligns nicely with RDF/XML declarations. Full example is 
below in 4.

4. Semantic serialization and parsing. RDF/JSON is presumably a sole RDF 
-> JSON serialization. It need know nothing about RDF/XML (though 
clearly here I advocate changing that to a tighter linkage to 
informationally lossless transliteration of RDF/XML). But it seems that 
the more that RDF/JSON differentiates itself as something more than "one 
more ad hoc way of representing RDF in JSON" (of which there are many 
such competing proposals), the more it could position itself as an 
important and distinct addition to the W3C toolbox.

One way to do this is to more tightly embrace RDF as the underlying W3C 
Semantic Web technology and then use knowledge of those semantics to 
improve the serialization; i.e., RDF/JSON would be a "smart," 
semantically-aware JSON serialization of W3C Semantic Web technologies.

We immediately distinguish here between "semantic serialization and 
parsing" and "inference." Various implicit forms of semantic parsing are 
already done by many parsers and interpreters--for example, a scripting 
language interpreter may assume from 'var x = 1' that x is an integer 
variable, even though it has not been declared as being of that type. 
The goal of semantic serialization and parsing is to improve and effect 
the serialization and parsing while neither adding nor removing any new 
knowledge. For example, with semantic parsing this:


   "owl:DatatypeProperty" : ":myProperty",

   ":mySubject" : {
     ":myProperty" : {
       "rdf:resource" : "http://example.org/anna"

is equivalent to, and could be replaced by, this:


   "owl:DatatypeProperty" : ":myProperty",

   ":mySubject" : { ":myProperty" : "http://example.org/anna" }

The token "http://example.org/anna" is necessarily a resource, not a 
literal. The line between semantic serialization and parsing and 
inference is subtle. The former is concerned with preservation of 
explicit statements of knowledge (or their absence) while using ex situ 
knowledge in a manner that improves the serialization or parsing; the 
latter is concerned with making statements explicit that may otherwise 
be necessarily-true yet only implicit (not stated). Our focus is on the 
former. (If a serialization is missing statements, we want to preserve 
that absence, since the action of serialization should maintain 
input->output data integrity [for example, cases of purposely "broken" 
data models for the purpose of testing]).

A side-effect of the above is that in order to support streaming 
parsers, the order of statements in the document can be important (e.g., 
in the above example, if the declaration of myProperty occurred after 
its assignment, then the value "http://example.org/anna" would be 
considered a string literal, not a resource). This can be an issue, 
because RDF -> RDF/XML serializers may not give users control of the 
ordering of statements, nor even guarantee deterministic representations 
on successive invocations, thus RDF -> RDF/XML -> RDF/JSON -> RDF could 
fail to be informationally lossless. There are ways to address this, but 
at a minimum semantic serialization and parsing should be carefully weighed.

If we accept due diligence on a dependency of statement ordering in the 
document, then we can outline at least four ways to support semantic 
serialization and parsing:

1. Recognize "rdf:RDF", "xmlns", etc. when they appear in the Subject 
position as document directives, not user-defined Subjects (see above).

2. Predefine the xmlns namespaces rdf, rdfs, xsd, and owl (require no 
explicit assignments).

3. Recognize the semantics of rdf:type, rdfs:range, rdfs:domain, 
rdfs:subClassOf, rdfs:subPropertyOf, etc.: the RDF Object of those 
predicates must be a resource (cannot be a literal). An exception and 
special semantics apply when the object is an XSD datatype (e.g., 
"rdfs:range xsd:integer").

4. Allow the preservation of ex situ RDF comments with the keyword 
"comment" (or "@comment" or "//" or "#"). For example, if 
transliterating in RDF/XML, then the comments would be re-serialized as 
XML comments (<!-- -->). But if translating into N3, then the comments 
would be re-serialized as # comments.



   "?xml" : {
     "version" : "1.0",
     "encoding" : "UTF-8"

   "xmlns" : {
     ""       : "http://example.org/",
     "dc"     : "http://purl.org/dc/terms/",
     "foaf"   : "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1",
     "mySite" : "http://mySite.org/myTerms/"

   "//" : "This is a comment",

   "rdf:Property" : [ "dc:title", "dc:creator" ],

   "owl:DatatypeProperty" : "mySite:aDatatypeProperty",

   "owl:ObjectProperty" : "mySite:hasHomepage",

   "owl:Class" : [ "mySite:myClass", "mySite:anotherClass" ],

   "mySite:aDatatypeProperty" : {
       "rdfs:range" : "xsd:string"

   "mySite:anObjectProperty" : {
     "rdfs:range" : "mySite:myClass"

   "mySite:anotherObjectProperty" : {
     "rdfs:subPropertyOf" : "mySite:anObjectProperty",
     "rdfs:domain" : "mySite:myClass"

   ":about" : {
       "dc:title" : "Anna's Homepage",
       "dc:creator" : "_:anna",
       "mySite:hasHomepage" : "http://example.org/anna",
       "rdfs:comment" : [
         "This comment is an explicit property of the subject :about",
         "So is this one"
       "//" : [
         "This is not a property of the subject.",
         "It is equivalent to two XML comments <!-- --> within the 
:about element block when re-serialized as RDF/XML"


I believe the above will allow the informationally lossless 
transliteration of thousands (millons?) of extant RDF/XML documents into 
RDF/JSON--though a more thorough analysis is first warranted. The mere 
proliferation of said documents conforming to RDF/JSON should aid in its 
adoption. And of course, de novo RDF -> RDF/JSON is also satisfied.


There are many candidates for serializing RDF as JSON. If we want 
anything more than the null model of a array of triples, then we should 
identify the goals and prioritize the trade-offs. The proposal here 
attempts the following goals:

1. RDF/JSON should enable RDF -> JSON serialization independent any 
other RDF serialization (specifically, one should be able to go directly 
from an RDF data model into RDF/JSON without any intervening serialization).

2. RDF/JSON should be able to be implemented as a streaming 
re-serializer on legacy RDF/XML without the need for building a 
complete, in-memory RDF data model. The special attention to RDF/XML is 
because it is already the W3C recommended serialization for RDF.

3. RDF/JSON should allow the enablement of short-circuit parsing, if the 
provider chooses to serialize content so as to support it.

4. RDF/JSON should be informationally lossless with respect to both RDF 
and to transliterations of RDF/XML.

5. RDF/JSON should reflect a "natural" JSON representation: simple 
things should be "simply serialized" and complex things should be built 
from simple things. If one knows JSON, but doesn't really know RDF, then 
one should feel comfortable that JSON constructs are being used in 
intuitive, "natural" ways without the need for syntactic convolutions.

6. As a proposed W3C recommendation, RDF/JSON should leverage RDF, RDFS, 
XSD, and OWL semantics when it can do so either without compromise to 
the above goals, or with clear and prioritized compromise (for example, 
identifying cases where reliance on statement ordering is acceptable).

Damian Gessler


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/#tr_RDF
[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/qnameids, http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/#section-Syntax-languages
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#dfn-URI-reference
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 10:18:28 UTC

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