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

Re: [JSON] Initial comments

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 19:51:20 +0000
Message-ID: <4D6959B8.6030801@epimorphics.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 24/02/11 03:24, Nathan wrote:
> Hi All,
> To get some discussion going, here are my own personal views on JSON and
> RDF.
> I see two distinct needs here:
> One is to create a JSON serialization of RDF, capable of serializing all
> the RDF concepts (anything Turtle will be able to), an optimized machine
> to machine RDF transportation format. Most languages support JSON
> parsing now, and that parsing is very quick compared to XML and formats
> which require a custom parser (like turtle). Personally I see this as an
> easy hit, feel it would be well worth doing, and to be totally
> The second need is much more complex, to create a JSON format which
> allows people to publish and work with linked/web data easily.
> The distinction between the two is that the first is RDF serialized in
> JSON, the second is JSON which can be viewed as RDF when you put certain
> goggles.
> I'm personally convinced that if we try to mix the two we'll be here for
> years and tbh, we'll simply fail. So, my first request would for people
> to either agree or disagree with what I've said above, put it to a vote
> and move on with doing the two distinct things.

+1 to it's two different things.

Received on Saturday, 26 February 2011 19:52:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:55 UTC