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

Re: Why not application/json?

From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:32:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4525259A.6050302@torrez.us>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org

Mark Baker wrote:
> Hi Elias,
> On 10/4/06, Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us> wrote:
>> > I'm not sure what you mean by "model type".  Can you explain?
>> I was trying to say that the JSON format does not provide any
>> standard/best practice for content to be self-describing. If I parse a
>> document of type application/json there's no way for me to find out the
>> nature of the object structure I'm dealing within my application.
> After having a detailed look at the examples in the spec, I understand
> what you mean now.  I thought JSON's data model was richer than it
> was.  I agree that a specific media type is appropriate.

JSON is simple and hence favored over XML in some cases, but I'd be
cautious to not overuse it in applications. I'm glad you agree and we
were not polluting the IANA registry based on possibly a bad design

>> > 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.
>> I don't understand why the same reasoning doesn't apply to
>> application/json. Could you give me any specific reasons for your
>> disagreement?
>> In authoritative metadata:
>> "Superset media types being used when a more specific media type is
>> intended, such as the use of "application/xml" when there exists a more
>> specific media type corresponding to the root element."
>> I would take this as a sign that more is better.
> The appropriate media type depends entirely on the intent of the
> sender; if, for example, the sender wants to send XHTML to be
> interpreted as plain text, then text/plain is the appropriate media
> type.

Right. I gather that from the TAG finding.

> But you wouldn't want or need, say, application/foaf+rdfxml or
> application/sioc+rdfxml because FOAF and SIOC information can both be
> expressed unambiguously using the RDF/XML spec.

Right. I referred to this issue as why it was ok for us to use RDF/XML
for SPARQL Results in RDF.


> Mark.
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2006 15:33:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:07 UTC