- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 22:00:46 -0400
- To: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 04/06/2011 03:14 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > I don't quite understand how this list of questions arises as being the > key questions, or maybe just I don't know which user segments we are > addressing. > > If it's 3/4/5+C, that segment assumes a library, and we have two forms > of that: a one step specific-parser to produce a JS structure that the > app can use, or a full-blown library where access is always via a > library call. Either way the format on-the-wire isn't directly visible > to the application. We are interested in that segment, but we are attempting to reach a broader audience. That is - we can do almost anything with a library so the on-the-wire format doesn't matter. I'm trying to draw us toward the use cases where the on-the-wire format does matter - for people that just have JSON.parse(). If we can cover those people, we automatically cover 3/4/5+C... thus we reach a broader audience with the proposal. > Which is this addressing? On-the-wire or JS structure? I'd answer the > questions differently for these 2 cases. If I understand your question correctly, I believe its the "on-the-wire" format. Something a regular JSON developer can run JSON.parse() on and get a JavaScript object that they can work with without needing any fancy RDF/JSON libraries. -- 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 Thursday, 7 April 2011 02:01:17 UTC