W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [JSON] A starting point...

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:14:57 +0100
Message-ID: <4D9CBBB1.80707@epimorphics.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 06/04/11 01:50, Manu Sporny wrote:
> I really liked Nathan's proposal a few weeks ago:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0565.html
> Tom's serialization work is also excellent, and is a must read before
> diving any further into this e-mail:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-Serialization-Examples
> I'd like to see if we can come to some sort of consensus on a starting
> point based on Nathan's proposal. I'm going to remove things that raised
> issues w/ some people and see if we can all agree if the result could be
> the starting point for the JSON work.
> Note that this proposal is imperfect by design - it is only here to
> capture the things that the majority of the group seem to agree upon.
> It's merely meant to put a stake in the ground so that we may start
> building on top of it. If we can get agreement on these 5 principles,
> then we can add on features as the group discusses them:

I don't quite understand how this list of questions arises as being the 
key questions, or maybe just I don't know which user segments we are 

If it's 3/4/5+C, that segment assumes a library, and we have two forms 
of that: a one step specific-parser to produce a JS structure that the 
app can use, or a full-blown library where access is always via a 
library call. Either way the format on-the-wire isn't directly visible 
to the application.

Which is this addressing?  On-the-wire or JS structure?  I'd answer the 
questions differently for these 2 cases.


> 1: Constrain JSON [1] to be an (optionally nested) sequence of one or
>     more objects (where one, no enclosing [] is needed).
> 2: constrain object keys to be strings with no white space.
> 3: add recognition for a special "@id" property who's value is an IRI
>     (sets the subject of the object when present).
> 4: add recognition for a special "@type" property who's value is a
>     simple string. The value is looked up in the @context.
> 5: Support a "@context" property that allows for a set of mappings from
>     JSON keys to IRIs.
> {
>    "@context":
>    {
>       "Person": "http://xmlns.com/0.1/foaf/Person",
>       "name": "http://xmlns.com/0.1/foaf/name",
>    },
>    "@id": "http://jondoe.example.org/#me",
>    "@type": "Person",
>    "name": "Nathan Rixham"
> }
> That's it - please +1 below each number if you support the general
> direction of the feature. -1 if you don't, please explain if you don't.
> It's been around 2 weeks, so hopefully some of us have had time to let
> these ideas kick around in our heads for a while. I'll try to setup a
> Doodle poll to have a discussion about this proposal later on in the
> week as well as discuss some of the serialization work that Tom has done.
> -- manu
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 19:15:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:58 UTC