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

Harry Halpin:
> 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.

That mostly seems to be answering different questions. Maybe my subject
was misleading? I was only suggesting a specific requirement for the
specification ("that JSON-LD is used in way which makes it an
RDF-serialization of the data") - not to replace JSON-LD or add another
serialization. Those interested in more technical details are referred
to this section of the JSON-LD specification:
http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#relationship-to-rdf

But the reply from James Snell indicates that such a requirement would
be in scope, and I am very interested to see what he has suggested.

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

Please note the "informal". That is a practice which has already been
used in W3C Recommendations multiple times. Examples generally are
declared "non-normative" anyway. The JSON-LD specification, for example,
does this:
http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#conformance

Cheers,
Andreas

Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2014 08:04:45 UTC