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

Re: Can JSON-LD cater for Talis' RDF/JSON design goals?

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:59:15 +0100
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F8DA5CA1-64E6-45EA-8264-551CBB1BCB90@cyganiak.de>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
On 30 Aug 2011, at 17:59, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2011-08-30, at 13:57, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2011, at 08:56, Steve Harris wrote:
>>>> Could JSON-LD be changed so that one can define an “RDF geek compatibility context” that directly results in this convenient form, without need for post-processing?
>>> 
>>> That immediately makes me think of the "XML friendly" striped syntax of RDF/XML, i.e. hurts everyone, all the time.
>> 
>> I asked whether we can get a profile of JSON-LD that's isomorphic to Talis RDF/JSON. You'll have to expand a bit on why that would hurt everyone, all the time.
> 
> Because it would be a "special profile" of JSON-LD, just like RDF/XML is a special profile of XML, or RSS 1.0 was a special profile of RDF/XML. Though RSS had a schema, so it's a little less painful.

These are completely different things.

The “triple-friendly profile for JSON-LD” would be like a profile for RDF/XML that forbids all the optional variants so that there is just a single way of expressing an RDF graph as an XML tree (modulo ordering). Which would have been quite handy -- then you could *almost* write triple pattern queries with simple XPath (except for namespace prefixes and relative URIs).

I want an RDF in JSON variant that allows me to write a triple pattern query in a simple JSON expression.

Best,
Richard
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 17:59:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT