- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:30:33 +0200
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:24 , Andy Seaborne wrote: > > > 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. This is a good characterization... Ivan > > Andy > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 08:30:59 UTC