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

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

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:25:09 +0000
Message-ID: <4D8138C5.8010205@epimorphics.com>
To: David Wood <dpw@talis.com>
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 16/03/11 17:07, David Wood wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2011, at 10:59, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> On 16 Mar 2011, at 01:11, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> I know that Richard did a good job writing up an argument for a
>>> triple-based serialization, but even the write-up wasn't a
>>> glowing recommendation for that approach.
>> Fair enough.
>>> PROPOSAL: The RDF Working Group should design the RDF in JSON
>>> syntax structure to reflect the object-based data model that is
>>> in wide use in the Web developer community. The group recognizes
>>> that both the triple-based and iterative-reduction based
>>> approaches are useful and have a purpose to serve, but the time
>>> it would take to standardize two RDF in JSON syntaxes may impact
>>> the ability for the Working Group to meet its tight 1-year
>>> deadline.

The time argument only makes sense if you are talking about the same 
people swapping between the two extremes.  From the discussions so far, 
that's far from clear to me.

>> I'd prefer not having to vote on this proposal yet, because there
>> are certain clarifications and discussions that I'd like to see
>> before making up my mind.
>> My concerns here are:
>> 1. It appears to me that the goal of the RDF-in-JSON approach as
>> championed by Manu is not to serialize an RDF graph in a JSON
>> syntax, but to standardize a system of JSON conventions that allow
>> parsing of the output of existing JSON APIs (perhaps with small
>> modifications) as RDF.

I agree.

Sometimes it sounds more like "GRDDL for JSON".  The mapping isn't 
universal - the generation of IRIs from data that has sufficiently 
unique keys is application dependent, for example.

>> 2. If I am mistaken in thinking so, then I observe that a lot of
>> Manu's arguments in favour of the object-based approach fall apart,
>> especially those regarding “picking up the developers where they
>> are right now.”
>> 3. If my observation regarding the goal of this RDF-in-JSON
>> approach is correct, then I think we need discussion about charter
>> scope and WG composition, as the goal appears somewhat broader than
>> what the WG was chartered for.
> Perhaps, but this seems like a reasonable conversation to have.
> Let's get the proposal fully on the table and then take it off if we
> need to (or coordinate with other groups as appropriate).

Then the phrase "RDF in JSON" seems the wrong way round.  It's "JSON as 

PROPOSAL: The RDF Working Group JSON Task Force will work on way of 
mapping typical existing JSON data objects into a form that can be 
interpreted as RDF.

Feel free to suggest a better wording - this is just a quick draft to 
try to find a proposal that is about the core issue directly, and not 
indirectly by talking about syntax structure.


> Regards, Dave
>> Best, Richard
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 22:25:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:57 UTC