W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > October 2006

Why not application/json?

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:30:55 -0400
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0610041730o22d979b7m40434949aaf57a28@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org

Hi,

I checked out the just published SPARQL-results-in-JSON draft and
noted that the media type was still application/sparql-results+json.
Thinking I'd commented on this before, I went to the archives and
found a response intended for me that wasn't actually sent to me;

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2006Jun/0047

It gave the following reasoning for the use of that media type, which
I'll respond to below;

"Sorry it took me long to answer, but I wanted to run my answer by the WG
so I could speak on its behalf. Although we know application/json could
suffice, we felt that it'd be important to distinguish between JSON
encoded graphs and SPARQL results format. Admittedly, JSON is a data
model, but unfortunately, there are no conventions to specify the model
type. This the same reason why we didn't use application/xml for SPARQL
Results XML Format to be able to distinguish it from RDF/XML."

I'm not sure what you mean by "model type".  Can you explain?

I agree application/xml is insufficient for SPARQL results (and any
specific XML vocabulary in fact, for the reasons in the TAG finding on
authoritative metadata).  I don't agree that the same reasoning can be
applied to application/json though.

And as I mentioned in my initial comment, the WG used
application/rdf+xml for SPARQL results in RDF/XML, and rightly so IMO.

FWIW, I've never used JSON so perhaps I'm missing something.

Mark.
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2006 00:31:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:50 GMT