Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room

Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [2011-03-23 13:00-0400]
>>> This is pretty much the sole reason that every developer I know outside 
>>> of the sem web community does not use RDF in any way, even though they 
>>> like the concepts and would like "linked data".
>> I don't think that this is the reason.  
>>
>> My speculation is that the disconnect is in a different place, namely
>> the difference between the open data model of RDF and the closed data
>> model of many object-oriented languages (or, maybe, of many
>> object-oriented minds).
> 
> Trying to think narrowly about just the production and consumption of
> JSON, I think agree with PFPS. While folks are used to working with
> objects, and being able to call methods and that sort of thing, JSON
> marshalling throws that away and just records/restores the constituent
> properties, much as you would when marshalling to RDF. ASP.NET tries
> to instill some higher-level marshalling protocol to give you objects,
> but I don't think that's what Joe Javascript has come to expect from
> his JSON.  And if he has, we can probably impose the same coding
> disciplines.

I agree too, but see the two as being closely related, I'd suggest many 
are seeing one of these JSON objects as an instance of a class with 
closed world semantics, a single type, a distinct set of properties on 
each instance of that class (from the class definition/blueprint) and so 
forth.

So, can Bob look at an RDF-Object as having close world semantics in his 
domain specific application, whilst Mary sees it as being part of the 
giant global graph with open world semantics in another application?

Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 17:25:29 UTC