Re: [JSON] Elephant in the room

Nathan wrote:
> 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?
> 

.. and can the URI of the object provide a namespace/scope that one can 
be seen as working within to get the closed world semantics?

Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 17:27:40 UTC