W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > January 2008

Re: JSON representation of semantic objects

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:20:08 -0500
Message-ID: <477F0578.8030904@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Benjamin Nowack wrote:
> Talis has invested some time in RDF/JSON[1]. The current version is
> following an "as simple as possible" approach (e.g. no qnames and 
> other barriers). Adding support for that RDF/JSON proposal to ARC was
> trivial, but it's not necessarily appealing to microformateers due to
> the "URIs everywhere".

Hmmm... could you clarify? Being a "Microformateer" (is that like being
a Mouseketeer? =P), I'm going to disagree with your last statement.

The Microformats community, like the RDFa community, cares foremost
about semantics and adoption. If there is a unified serialization format
that works for Microformat parsers as well as the RDFa and eRDF parsers,
then all three communities should be happy, as it will speed adoption of
each approach. Developers would be writing towards one serialization
specification, instead of two or three.

We don't want our own version of a BetaMax vs. VHS or a Bluray vs. HDDVD
format struggle... if we do this right from the beginning, it will help
speed adoption of the semantic web.

The only thing that must be done to get this to happen is:

1. Work with the Microformats community to map all current Microformats
to RDF vocabularies (which I'm working on w/ the uF community).
2. Get the RDF community to agree on a lightweight JSON representation
format for triples (which I was hoping to get some feedback from this or
the SWD list).

-- manu

Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Intro to the Semantic Web in 6 minutes (video)
Received on Saturday, 5 January 2008 04:20:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:26 UTC