W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2011

Re: JSON Emergency Brake

From: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:05:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CALgRrLnQ+qo0rDE8C2OwMPztAUrMOUv1qn+_E9WXOaemoKbmJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Richard, all,

> Your point seems to be: We should stop working on RDF/JSON, because JavaScript developers who are already familiar with JSON will look at it and not like it.
More or less, yes.

> The target audience of RDF/JSON is not JavaScript developers who are already familiar with JSON. It is RDF developers who work in JavaScript. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a format designed to fill a small but concrete niche. This has been said in our discussions over and over again, so it's nothing new.
I understand that. Still it seems to add just yet another syntax to
the stack. The problem I see: is this small (but no doubt existing)
niche big enough to justify the confusion caused through the existence
of (potentially) two JSON serializations in the end? I knew that this
would be controversial, hence I had the email be ACK'ed by all parties
involved, including Ian and Manu.

> You are saying that the wrong people might look at RDF/JSON and they might think it's meant for them. I think the correct response to that is *not* to stop working on RDF/JSON, but to make sure that the messaging around the format does not create the impression that it's targeted at them.
+1 to that argument. Still not sure it causes less confusion.

> One step towards avoiding that impression would be to rename it, removing JSON from the name.
I think having RDF _in_ the name will be sufficient ;-) Just kidding.
In the end it is still JSON, so the media type could still contain a
"+json" suffix.

As Ivan says later in the thread, we might need both. Not convinced we
do, but I come from the JavaScript corner, as stated before, and I see
the danger of the confusion of having JSON choices causing more harm
than good. For what it is worth.


Thomas Steiner, Research Scientist, Google Inc.
http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 16:06:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:08 UTC