Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements

On Mar 7, 2011, at 13:53 , Nathan wrote:

[snip]
> 
> Yes, I agree :) hence why mentioning,
> 
> {s: subject1, p: property1, o: value1 }
> {s: subject1, p: property2, o: value2 }
> 
> vs
> 
> {
>  id: subject,
>  property1: value1,
>  property2: value2,
> }

Oh that is what you were asking? I would probably say:

{
  subject: <lala> ,
  property: <blabla> ,
  value : "adfasfas"
}

ie, use that terminology and not the s,p,o. "property" and "value" is pretty much ubiquitous. But that is a detail.

Ivan


> 
>> There are of course issues around URI-s vs. Literals: well, we had some fierce discussions at the RDFa Working Group on whether RDFa would include some automatism that says that if a literal in an object position can be interpreted like a URI, then we should generate a URI Resource and not a Literal. There are millions of details there but, again, a simple minded mechanism like that would cover 80% of those developers' use cases.
>> Again, I am not 100% sure what this means but what I am trying to say is that, for the JSON serialization, maybe we should try to look at the issue with a totally different mindset...
> 
> agree


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf