Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:

> Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>
>>
>>  What I am trying to find is the sweet spot that would create a bridge
>>> between them and those Web Application Developers who do not know RDF or,
>>> worse, who are averse to RDF because they see it as too complex, researchy,
>>> etc (I think we all met these various memes around that). Doesn't that mean
>>> that to please those a JSON/RDF must be damn simple (even if it does not
>>> cover the whole of RDF), and maybe also include shorthands to make it even
>>> simpler (eg, default subjects to see only property value pairs, etc). At
>>> first glance this hints at something like the 's', 'p', 'o' format of Andy
>>> with some defaults here and there...
>>>
>>> Put it another way, I am not sure our goal is to build a JSON
>>> serialization that would compete with Turtle. Only with N-Triples...
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I think you have a very valid point, here. I came up with a proposal,
>> called JTriples [1] - not pretty, still some open issues (re literals) but
>> might serve as a basis for exploration.
>>
>
> I hate to say this, but if the problem is web developers who do not know
> RDF or, worse, who are averse to RDF because they see it as too complex,
> then surely the last thing we want to do is give them raw RDF triples in
> almost their purest form?
>
> Would simply K/V objects with a subject (id) set not be more inline with
> what they're used to & indeed want?
>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
>
+1 for the bridge, not only another RDF serialization.

Maybe it's another thing to make clearer, also in the RDF documentation, why
is RDF too complex for the web developer? ( for the vocabularies, for the
reification, graph model, ontologies and so on? )
I think that several points of contact with the object programming theory
are too difficult to find in the RDF specification.
Make them more findable, it's a start maybe.
And the JSON proposal is probably the first location to start with.

 Matt