- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:30:34 +0000
- To: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Thomas, On 10 Mar 2011, at 14:00, Thomas Steiner wrote: >> Thanks. There's one thing I don't understand: This looks to me like a use case for plain vanilla JSON, and not like a use case for a JSON+RDF format. The service in question doesn't appear to be using anything besides vanilla JSON in its responses. > > Sure, this (today) is a classical case for vanilla JSON. Just as you > can get a vanilla JSON representation of the JSON article (recursion > FTW!) in Freebase > (http://www.freebase.com/experimental/topic/standard/en/json), or its > RDF counterpart (http://rdf.freebase.com/rdf/en.json), I envision > cool-semantic-image-site.example.org to return vanilla JSON, or RDF in > form of JSON in the future, if, and only if, what this WG comes up > with is usable. > > To make it a little more concrete: > http://about.ookaboo.com/a/ookaboo_api/documentation. Again, all names > used as examples, I don't mean to pick on anyone (well, except for > W3Schools maybe). > > Does this make more sense now? I don't know. Not to me anyways. The use case uses vanilla JSON and not JSON+RDF as far as I can tell. So I don't understand how it's a use case for JSON+RDF. There seems to be a use case in there for returning plain vanilla JSON from a Linked Data website (because developers love plain vanilla JSON!). It doesn't motivate why Joe wants JSON+RDF or how it solves any of his problems. Best, Richard > > Best, > Tom > > -- > Thomas Steiner, Research Scientist, Google Inc. > http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 14:31:11 UTC