Re: Social Web Working Group Charter "other data serializations" out of scope: What about RDF?

On 06/07/2014 04:16 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> The [DRAFT] Social Web Working Group Charter states:
> 
> "A transfer syntax for social data such as activities (such as status
> updates) should include at least the ability to describe the data using
> URIs in an extensible manner, time-stamping, and should include a
> serialization compatible with Javascript (JSON) and possibly JSON-LD.
> Formats based on XML or other data serializations are out-of-scope."
> http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html
> 
> For clarification: I suppose that this does not imply that it can not
> become a requirement for the specifications that JSON-LD is used in way
> which makes it an RDF-serialization of the data at the same time. Correct?
> 
> If the answer is yes, then such a requirement would be my first
> suggestion for the WG. The practical effect of such a requirement likely
> would be small: In practice it is difficult to accidentally create valid
> JSON-LD documents which are not usable RDF-serializations at the same
> time. But it is better to make requirements explicit.

We are sticking to JSON (and JSON-LD) for interop requirements, although
people are free to additionally serialize however they want (RDF/XML for
those who want it, or Turtle, or even custom bytestrings).

In detail, people can serialize however they want, put forcing specs to
test on a myriad of often-not-so-well developed or adopted data
exchanges would make the CR process of creating a unified test-suite for
the Social Web rather cumbersome. Since most of the Web uses JSON we'll
use that for REC track, we're sticking to it, but folks can publish
alternatives as Working Group Notes, Community Group reports, or IETF
Internet Drafts.




> 
> (I would also like to see informal Turtle examples in the future
> specification documents, not only JSON-LD ;-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>

Received on Saturday, 7 June 2014 17:13:18 UTC