W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2007

Re: RDF/JSON

From: cr <_@whats-your.name>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 00:59:55 -0400
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070906045955.GE2611@replic.net>

> > RESOURCE URI => {
> > 		  PROPERTY URI	=>
> > 				  [
> >                                     {
> > 					type: ("literal","uri","bnode"),
> > 					value: (the value of the object),
> > 					lang: (language code - optional),
> > 					datatype: (URI of the datatype - optional)
> > 				    },
> > 					...
> > 				  ],
> > 			...
> > 		},
> >  ...
> > }
> 
> no thanks..
> 1 JSON already has a way to express literals in its syntax, and it doesnt involve a wrapping object and a 'datatype' and 'value' field. i'm happy being limited to strings, floats, ints, arrays and tables..
> 2 this is three levels of nesting instead of one

sorry, miscounted

blank node in above format:
1         2      34                      5
{bnodeid: {prop: [{type: 'literal',value:"v"}]}}

vs
1      2
{prop: 'v'}


all im saying is feel free to invent what you want, but youre not inventing the simplest thing that could work. its also 'wasting' the natural ability of the languates that use JSON to store RDF resources as si(ng|mp)le native Hash/Table/Object/Dict objects. this is exactly why i stopped using redland and havent found another RDF lib i'd want to use..

youre also throwing away the ability to return graph results in a way that the programmer might want to naturally loop over them. but then SPARQL doestn really suport recursive query results so i could see why that wasnt on the radar
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 05:00:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:59 UTC