W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-hydra@w3.org > November 2013

Re: making RDF model visible in spec [was: representing hypermedia controls in RDF]

From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:53:54 +0000
Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
Message-Id: <45D56731-2E50-4EBC-AE42-3287A7AAC893@ugent.be>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Hi Markus,

I split this mail to discuss the spec representations separately.

> Would you volunteer to convert the examples to Turtle?

I could, yes. Is there assistance from an automated tool?
My workflow for understanding RDF/XML is now to use cwm and convert to Turtle;
if I have something similar for JSON-LD, then I can do this.

> I'm still very skeptical about this. Turtle has been around for a decade now
> and I have yet to see a Web API (outside the small Semantic Web community)
> using it. JSON-LD on the other hand is still quite young and already widely used. 

True, but:
a) Turtle is still not standardized (the SemWeb maffia wouldn't admit the RDF/XML mistake)
b) JSON is ideal to consume in Web applications

However, I as a spec reader am not a Web application.

> Right, that's what I'm trying to say. Not many web developers think in terms
> of triples. People with a strong Semantic Web background as you do but that
> community is tiny compared to the group of web developers fluent in JSON.

I'm fluent in JSON too; however, there is more to JSON-LD than JSON.

>> E.g., the triple model doesn't come to live with JSON-LD.
> The question is, has it to?

Counter-question: does Hydra need RDF?
It could be possible to define it just as a JSON subset.
However, the choice was made to use the underlying RDF model;
as such, we cannot pretend it doesn't exist.

I strongly appreciate the JSON compatibility that JSON-LD brings for the RDF model;
but this does not mean an understanding of JSON equals an understanding of JSON-LD and thus RDF.

So if average Web developers are the core target of the spec, is it wise to use RDF as model?
(Not being cynical here, honest question.)

If you say, RDF is the way to go (the SemWeb maffia thanks you),
then yes, I think the underlying triple model should come to live for RDF-understanding readers.

> Yeah, and I hope this is not turning into a syntax war :-)

Not here to fight that war :-)
For me it's about model, not syntax.

> I've created ISSUE-18 [2] to keep track of this. Let's see if other people
> (preferably non-SemWeb experts) complain about it.

Just want to ensure that people with my background (which is not all that different!)
also understand it, as I need this spec to become important here.

The spec chose RDF as a model;
if people with an RDF background don't find it easy to use,
there's maybe no point in having an RDF model.

> By simple I meant to keep my job simple :-) There are no examples to keep in
> sync, no difference between syntaxes to be explained

Automated conversion is what we need.
Just a JavaScript toggle from JSON-LD to Turtle;
they're two syntaxes for the same model anyway
(with the difference that JSON-LD also has the JSON model).


Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2013 14:54:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:40 UTC