- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:28:00 +0000
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, John Sheridan <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk>
On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 21:42 +0000, Jeni Tennison wrote: > To put this in context, what I think we should aim for is a pure > publishing format that is optimised for approachability for normal > developers, *not* an interchange format. RDF/JSON [1] and the SPARQL > results JSON format [2] aren't entirely satisfactory as far as I'm > concerned because of the way the objects of statements are represented > as JSON objects rather than as simple values. jsonGRDDL <http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/jsonGRDDL/spec> provides a method of mapping from more human-friendly JSON formats to RDF/JSON. (Much like GRDDL does mapping XML to RDF/XML.) Essentially you want the inverse. It seems to me that for a format to be very human-friendly, it helps for it to be fairly domain-specific. For example, if you know you're modelling people, then it makes sense to have the "sex" property as a single value, but telephone number, e-mail address, and perhaps even name might be arrays. With a deep enough OWL ontology (so that it can be figured out which properties are singular and plural), I suppose you could get software to do a reasonably good job creating these human-friendly formats from RDF data. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Sunday, 13 December 2009 22:28:47 UTC