Re: comments/questions on JSON-LD spec (but _not_ for the CG->WG transition!) from Andy Seaborne on 2012-06-18 (public-linked-json@w3.org from June 2012)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:24:46 +0100
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
Message-ID: <4FDEE5CE.3050502@epimorphics.com>

On 17/06/12 22:57, Pat Hayes wrote:
> The arguments for JSON were, as I recall, that it provided a*simpler*
> notation for RDF than, say, RDF/XML, and that it was very*natural*
> to use JSON to express RDF structure. If this example is typical, I
> would run screaming from JSON and stick to RDF/XML as a standard.

JSON-LD is closer in intent to RDFa - in this case, it adds (makes 
explicit) semantics of a JSON document while retaining the JSON 
document.  Like RDFa, you can encode a graph in JSON-LD but there are 
compromises - the data models are not the same so there is additional 
line noise. If your purpose is to transfer RDF from A to B, you will be 
better off using Turtle.

	Andy

Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 08:25:15 UTC