RE: representing deserialized RDF - N3, JSON-LD, RDFa, XML/RDF

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:47 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> > But if we are to pick a winner, W3C RECs should probably be supported
> which means RDF/XML and Turtle, and we have parsers for them already.
> We can get ready for JSON LD when it goes to REC.
> 
> Oh waw yes. why did we overlook that option. Just exchange Turtle, it's
> a standard after all.

Turtle is not a standard yet. It's a Candidate Recommendation, so actually
one step behind JSON-LD in the recommendation process. JSON-LD is a Proposed
Recommendation and the voting period is over. Now it's just up to the W3C
director to declare it a Recommendation, i.e., a standard. Likely that won't
happen before the other documents catch up (most importantly RDF Concepts).


>> Unless someone comes up with a good reason against I would vote for
>> JSON-LD then.
>
> One (perhaps minor) against: there exist different serializations of the
> same thing. So you'd basically need a full JSON-LD parser. But that's
> possible of course. And probably, we can just use another library to
> read that.

That's a valid point. In this specific case I would just define a profile
which specifies the structure the document has to adhere to. Since JSON-LD
has a profile media type parameter you can even expose that information on
the wire.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 15:33:17 UTC