- From: Dominik Tomaszuk <ddooss@wp.pl>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 20:46:52 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi Richard, Here my answers: On 17.05.2012 20:22, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > It seems there are number of obvious objections that could be raised against introducing such a datatype and I think they would need answering (for example in a “Rationale” section attached to the proposal).scope of RDF-WG's charter > > • What is the use case for this datatype? Repository of access control, where we store ACLs in JSON for RDF data. > • Are there examples of systems that currently use JSON literals in RDF literals? Mine :-) . It is only prototype, I don't publish it yet. It's part of my Ph.D. thesis. > • Are there examples of currently published RDF data that use such JSON literals? For example ACLs. > • Why isn't xsd:string sufficient for representing JSON literals? Well, it is close to approach XMLLiteral. Most of the cases for the XML xsd:string is sufficient, but it is in spec. > • Given that anyone can define new RDF datatypes, why should RDF-WG do it? Because JSON like XML and HTML is universal and common. There are a lot of solutions based on the JSON, which can be mixed with RDF in future. > • Why is this within the scope of RDF-WG's charter [1]? It can be connected to JSON serialization, which is in the scope of RDF-WG's charter. Cheers, Dominik
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 18:47:20 UTC