W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > February 2013

JSON-LD should be an RDF syntax

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:38:18 -0500
Message-ID: <512D8DBA.6050203@dbooth.org>
To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
These are comments on

1. JSON-LD should be an RDF syntax, just as Turtle is an RDF syntax. 
This means: (a) it should define the *same* data model as RDF -- not a 
superset; and (b) it should have the same semantics as RDF serialized in 
any other syntax.

It does not make sense for the W3C to define splinter the RDF market by 
defining a competing data model that is so similar to RDF and fills the 
same needs.  Section C 'Relationship to RDF' makes clear that JSON-LD 
defines a *different* graph model than RDF: "The RDF data model, as 
outlined in [RDF-CONCEPTS], is an abstract syntax for representing a 
directed graph of information. It is a subset of JSON-LD's data model".

If the long-term plan for RDF is that it will eventually embrace the 
additional features of JSON-LD (such as blank nodes as graph names, 
blank nodes as properties) then the RDF specification itself (and the 
SPARQL specification?) should be changed NOW to be consistent with JSON-LD,.

2. A JSON serialization of RDF should not require IRIs to be 
dereferenceable -- even with a "SHOULD" requirement as currently stated:
IRIs used within a JSON-LD graph should return a Linked Data document 
describing the resource denoted by that IRI when being dereferenced.

Fundamentally this specification should be defining JSON-RDF -- not 
JSON-LD.  There are many RDF applications that are not Linked Data 
applications but would nonetheless benefit from a JSON serialization of RDF.

However, it would be good to define JSON-LD on *top* of JSON-RDF, once 
JSON-RDF is defined.

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 04:38:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:31 UTC