- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:55:44 -0400
- To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
A long-delayed set of responses to Andy... On 03/24/2011 09:43 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> 1: Constrain JSON [1] to be an (optionally nested) sequence of one >> or more objects (where one, no enclosing [] is needed). > > I'm not convinced nesting is needed. Instead, what about a flat > JSON-[] array of data objects with fields. Linking is up to the app. > > Nesting means there are two ways to write one thing. Our company is convinced that nesting is needed. That is, we tried the no-nesting route and our JavaScript developers rejected it. It's seen as a weakness in the language if what is easy to nest in JavaScript, is suddenly forbidden in RDF in/on/with JSON. Just because there are two ways to write one thing doesn't necessarily mean that is a bad thing. Sometimes, writing it one way is more efficient/practical/clearer than writing it the other way. That is, there are multiple ways to express things in TURTLE, HTML+RDFa, etc. - and that is often seen as a strength, not a weakness. >> There are currently three JSON grammar serializations, which one >> should this Working Group use as the basis for the RDF/JSON >> serialization: >> >> * RFC4627: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt * ECMA-262 5th >> Edition: >> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/ECMA-262.pdf >> * json.org: http://json.org/ > > How do they differ? Are there real world examples of collisions? I thought that Peter asserted that they differ - I don't know how they differ. Perhaps an allusion to the backslash-escaping "/" when you don't need to? -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: The PaySwarm Vocabulary http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/03/31/payswarm-vocab/
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 23:56:09 UTC