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

Re: [JSON] A starting point...

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:00:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4D9D1ACE.7020304@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 04/06/2011 03:14 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 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
> addressing.
> 
> 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.

We are interested in that segment, but we are attempting to reach a
broader audience. That is - we can do almost anything with a library so
the on-the-wire format doesn't matter.

I'm trying to draw us toward the use cases where the on-the-wire format
does matter - for people that just have JSON.parse(). If we can cover
those people, we automatically cover 3/4/5+C... thus we reach a broader
audience with the proposal.

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

If I understand your question correctly, I believe its the "on-the-wire"
format. Something a regular JSON developer can run JSON.parse() on and
get a JavaScript object that they can work with without needing any
fancy RDF/JSON libraries.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The PaySwarm Vocabulary
http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/03/31/payswarm-vocab/
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 02:01:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT