Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based

On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 16:35 +0000, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> 
> On 16/03/11 14:57, Manu Sporny wrote:
> > On 03/16/11 10:06, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> >> While I can support a data-object style (providing a document is
> >> self-contained and matters of coverage), the more important question to
> >> me is whether we are designing to API access or direct datastructure
> >> access, and within the latter whether there is translation between
> >> on-the-wire and applications forms.
> >
> > We (our company) found that it is nearly impossible to generically
> > address these two approaches at the same time without an API:
> >
> > 1. Use JSON as-is but translate it to RDF.
> > 2. Support terms, CURIEs, datatypes or languages.
> >
> > I think we need a minimum API... and really, nobody uses eval() these
> > days - they use jQuery, which uses the JSON API ->  JSON.parse()
> 
> Yes, I know direct eval() is not often done.  The point stands though - 
> is it a call that is specific RDF of a call that any JS app might make. 
>   You are describing a non-generic call in which case the relationship 
> between javascript objects and serialization is open.

Agreed.   If users have to call rdf_in_json.parse() then why shouldn't
they just use turtle.parse() instead?  Or, really, rdf.parse(), which
understands turtle, rdf/xml, and RDFa.    

I'm wondering how terse and simple we can get the use cases here.

    -- Sandro

> > However, my definition of API might be different from your definition of
> > API. I think we need a single API call:
> >
> > rdfInJson.parse()
> >
> > That's it.
> > We also want to have an RDF in JSON parser that can plug into the RDF
> > API, but that is an orthogonal issue. There is the concept of a
> > "Projection" in the RDFa API (which we lifted from SPARQL)... that's
> > what I think the rdfInJson.parse() method should return - a Projection.
> > The projection would allow people to do stuff like:
> >
> > obj.name
> >
>   instead of heavy-weight stuff like (in the RDF API):
> 
> 
> OK - the bytes sent over the network don't even have to JSON.  The task 
> would be defining the in-application JSON datastructure.   A separate 
> decision is how that relates to any JSON-on-the-wire.
> 
> This matters when writing RDF back to the web, not just JSON-emitted 
> data viewed as RDF.
> 
>  Andy
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 18:02:16 UTC