Re: OWL2 serialized as JSON?

On 6 Apr 2011, at 12:46, Bob Ferris wrote:

> Hi Peter,
[snip]
> However, then you probably confuse people even more who are trying to get into Semantic Web, or?

I think the likelihood is small, esp. that there'd be a significant marginal degradation.

We don't and shouldn't optimize everything for the sake of newbies (though obviously we shouldn't be hostile).

> If we would have two separate serializations formats, then you have to teach people RDF/JSON and OWL/JSON,

I imagine that the people who need to know both is rather small.

The main point is that there's a requirement for a concrete serialization in JSON of something close to the OWL abstract syntax. This is not (easily) met by any RDF/JSON serialization.

It would behoove you to understand the requirement :) You may think meeting it isn't, globally, a good idea, but you should understand what you aren't meeting.

> and convience them from their benefits and existence.

I don't see why we have to do that for arbitrary people. (Existence is easy :)).

> The power of RDF Model is that it is a knowledge representation structure for the vocabulary level and the instantitation level.

Er...that's not really a power.

> Otherwise, you would (prefer to) use OWL/JSON for vocabulary level serializations and RDF/JSON for instatiation level serializations.

? OWL/XML can serialize both TBox and ABox statements.

> Finally, the size reduction would be a consequence of a more complex grammar,

Actually, a *simpler* grammar. Really! Surprising but true :)

> which might be a disadvantage.

Again, we're not inventing out of whole cloth but providing a concrete syntax (and API for free!) for an established model.

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 12:01:10 UTC