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

Re: [JSON] A starting point...

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:20:00 +0100
Message-ID: <4D9E1C70.90106@webr3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 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.

Likewise, although I dare say it doesn't make a scratch of difference to 
the likes of Manu, Thomas and I who are all part of both groups and 
focussed on JSON.

Positive: two clear requirement sets and different WGs to focus on each 
could be a big positive that allows us all to get on efficiently.

Negative: it could easily seem like there are two competing formats / 
approaches / groups raising questions like "which RDF/JSON should I use".

Neutral: Just call one RDF/JSON and the other LinkedData/JSON.

.. probably about time we all just accepted that there are two different 
communities, with two different, yet overlapping, sets of requirements 
from the (semantic) web.

>> 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.

+1, however a defensive stance :p since the start 24th Feb I doth write: 
"I see two distinct needs here", and still remain utterly convinced of 
this. Also quite convinced that if we split the needs properly and focus 
we'll all get on and produce two usable, decent specs rather than one 
big mess, which my primary concern, and has been for a long time now.

ps: the reason for me being convinced is because I need both, as 
separate things, different tools for different jobs.

>> 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

Well said, I agree, and hope we get to 2 starting points for 2 different 
specs, regardless of which WGs do each (or both).

Best,

Nathan
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 20:21:05 GMT

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