W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2013

RE: JSON Resource Description ?

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 16:25:49 +0100
To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "'W3C RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <014701ce06d9$be48e040$3adaa0c0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Friday, February 08, 2013 7:51 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> I just noticed this media type application on an IETF list.   I haven't
> looking into it.  Do we know about JRD and how it compares to JSON-LD?

I was following the development. At some point the question came up whether
JSON-LD should be used instead of JRD. I thought it wouldn't make much
sense. It would have been rather trivial to change the format to use JSON-LD
but the working group was already working two years on it and was close to
finalize it. Furthermore JRD was supposed to map more or less directly to

Webfinger is a simple discovery protocol. You can use it, e.g., to find the
blog of a person if you just know that person's email address. The trick is
that you would do something like

GET /.well-known/webfinger? resource=mailto%3Asandro%40w3.org HTTP/1.1
Host: w3.org

To get the JRD document for sandro@w3.org.

Theoretically you could use it to serialize RDF but that would require rules
defining how to interpret the data. To include statements about more than
one subject, you would also need to redefine the whole format. Obviously,
advanced features such as data typing or I18N are missing completely.

So, to sum it up, yes I do think it is similar in certain regards but
focuses clearly on one specific use case (discovering data for accounts that
have no dereferenceable URI) whereas JSON-LD is much more generic and can be
used for a plethora of applications.


Markus Lanthaler
Received on Saturday, 9 February 2013 15:26:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:10 UTC