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

Re: [JSON] user segments, version 2

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 08:24:15 +0100
Message-ID: <4DA15B1F.2080805@webr3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:
> HI Sandro,
> On Apr 9, 2011, at 13:51 , Sandro Hawke wrote:
> <snip/>
>> On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 10:17 +0200, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> On Apr 8, 2011, at 20:10 , Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>> <snip/>
>>>> Yes, my use of the word "simple" was meant to convey that Group D
>>>> doesn't want to use a library.
>>>>>> Now, with this simpler view, we can see where the real complication is:
>>>>>> we'd like to address several of these groups at once.  Ideally, we'd
>>>>>> like a single JSON format that works for everyone.  If it worked for
>>>>>> Group A, it would keep the current users happy (and twitter, facebook,
>>>>>> etc wouldn't mind adopting it). If it also worked for Group B (call
>>>>>> this an "AB" solution), it follows that it would also work for C and D
>>>>>> and everyone would be happy.  But I don't think there are any AB
>>>>>> solution.
>>>>>> It's somewhat easier to imagine "AC" and "AD" solutions.  I think
>>>>>> mostly the debates are which of B, AC, and AD we can or should do.
>>>>>> Maybe ACD is possible, too.     I *think* Manu is pushing for an AC
>>>>>> solution
>>>>> I believe JSON-LD's goal (ie, Manu's:-) would be more something like ACD (not sure it reaches it, though). Ie, a format that, at least in simple data, *can* be used by users in group D.
>>>> Can prefixes really be handled without a library?   I don't think so.  
>>> No they can't. But the point is: in some cases you do not care. If you have something like
>>> {
>>>  "@context" : { "name" : "foaf-uri-for-name", ... }
>>>  "name" : "Sandro"
>>> }
>>> *some* applications may want a full, RDF-like interpretation of the data (i.e., they need a library to manage the context), but some applications do not really care about that because they operate on very specific pages anyway, in which case they are perfectly happy with something like
>>> f = json.parse(data);
>>> f.name ...
>>> (or something like that). So a 'C' user is a 'D' user wearing RDF goggles, like Nathan called them... Put it another way, a specific user may start in the 'D' category then he/she realizes that there is more to achieve if an additional library is used, and can migrate into 'C', using the very same data.
>> Isn't that really a Group A way of looking at the world?  It's only
>> going to work for one site, following their arbitrary protocol.    In
>> this case the arbitrariness is their selection of prefixes.   
> Ok, that is true. What I wanted to say is that the same format, that covers A may also be appropriate for group D and C.

Indeed, A and D are so closely related that I don't really see a 
distinction personally, other than A appears to have no care 
what-so-ever for RDF / Linked Data, so unsure why it's mentioned :p

To me, a good example is: <http://graph.facebook.com/1234>

If you somehow said "stick http://ogp.me/ns# before each property, and 
use the URL as the subject, you've got RDF", then I believe that would 
cover a large portion of the "JSON as RDF" A/D user segments.


Received on Sunday, 10 April 2011 07:24:51 UTC

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