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

Fwd: RDF 1.1 JSON Serialisation (RDF/JSON)

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:18:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4E539A95.3080604@vu.nl>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
in case you hadn't seen this yet on rdf-comments. Input for JSON 
discussion.
Guus

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RDF 1.1 JSON Serialisation (RDF/JSON)
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:55:47 +0000
Resent-From: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:55:19 +0100
From: Graham Klyne <graham.klyne@zoo.ox.ac.uk>
Organization: Zoology, Oxford University
To: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Re: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-json/index.html

I'm probably wasting my time saying this, but I personally think that 
defining a
JSON format for RDF triples is missing the point of using JSON at all - 
it still
looks nothing like the kind of JSON a non-RDF developer might produce.

I think the effort would be better directed to defining a common 
RDF-carrying
JSON syntax that is closer to what applications might actually use.  An 
example
of the sort of thing I mean is JRON:
http://decentralyze.com/2010/06/04/from-json-to-rdf-in-six-easy-steps-with-jron/, 
which
I have used quite successfully to migrate an application using non-RDF 
JSON to
using something that can also be interpreted as RDF.

"Sometimes, if you stand in the right place and squint, JSON and RDF 
line up
perfectly."  But the view of RDF triples isn't that place.

#g
--
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 12:18:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT