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

Re: NTriple vs. JSON... (Re: JSON Emergency Brake)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:41:23 +0100
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BB47A320-4A8D-403F-945A-95C43A7A938D@cyganiak.de>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 25 Aug 2011, at 14:14, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> So we have two options:
>> 
>> 1. take the popular N-Triples format, which accidentally became a quasi-standard and is already known and implemented by most of the target audience, and turn it into a proper W3C Recommendation
>> 
>> 2. invent yet another completely new format on the assumption that all RDF geeks are going to love it because it uses JSON, and will abandon N-Triples for it
> 
> Well, this would keep us busy, wouldn't it? AFAIK, you do not have enough on your plate:-)
> 
> Jokes aside, of course you are right that #1 has this status. The question is whether we see a large expansion of new tools and environments that will want to include such simple-triple-interchange format or not. For the new implementations JSON might be simpler.

Even if that's the case, then turning N-Triples into a proper W3C Rec would still be a good use of the WG's time, IMHO. It should also be very quick, modulo the UTF-8 issue :-/

> But all this issue (which I raised without seriously pushing for it) might have become moot after yesterday's discussion on the call...

If there was a vote on “make JSON time-permitting in the RDF-WG charter”, with the implicit intention of not doing it (except if JSON-LD takes off like a rocket over the next 12 months), then I'd be +1.

Best,
Richard
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 13:42:02 GMT

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