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

Re: [JSON] A starting point...

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 21:03:21 +0100
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8FDC4F36-FDFE-49F0-8999-CD363BB9BA62@cyganiak.de>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
On 7 Apr 2011, at 13:16, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> OK - this is "JSON as RDF" - annotate the JSON to make it interpretable as RDF for those that want to.  The annotations can be ignored to leave "standard" JSON.
> 
> "JSON as RDF" assumes there will be uptake (a plausible belief, but a belief) and is speculative.

+1

> Why it's not in the RDF web application WG is another question - won't the get the right people involved? And align it to the RDF API?

I think this is a valid question.

> If there is sufficient interest in an JSON serialization of RDF then maybe we split the TF into two - "JSON as RDF" and "RDF in JSON".

I'm increasingly tending to go +1 here. There is a clear need for "RDF in JSON" (6B). There is significant deployment. There is significant prior experience. The community is demanding a standard for this. The WG should deliver it. The proponents of "JSON as RDF" have not convinced me that they are interested in delivering this, or that they even understand the need for 6B, and that scares me.

> Downside is that there is a conflict of TC time.  I'm note sure it actually splits WG resources.  I hope the outcome of the F2F will be a decision on what is the target and who is interested.  Jumping to a starting point is jumping that decision.

+1
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 20:03:52 GMT

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