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

Re: JSON Emergency Brake

From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 16:14:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPqY83xiPvboLTKp0ORWU5GVwwHAUkKMhYH=-y2HwefXjdGsHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2011, at 17:05, Thomas Steiner wrote:
>> 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.
> Can you as someone from the Javascript corner think of some things that the WG could do to avoid or reduce that potential confusion, besides not doing the work at all?

As an expansion of "not doing the work" I didn't think and still don't
that the RDF WG has the right membership for making JSON-LD
successful. I imagine this then becomes a charter issue, we are
charted to create some JSON format but perhaps we aren't in fact the
right group of people to do it. I don't know how that works. If we do
intend to work on JSON-LD in this WG we need to reach out to a wider
community. On the other hand I don't think 'cause the charter says we
have to is a good reason to create a second standard which will only
introduce fragmentation.

... I guess I'm just not convinced that RDF/JSON meets any of the JSON
specific use cases from http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-JSON-UC,
sure it's in "JSON" but RDF/JSON sure as heck doesn't look like any
JSON I've seen. And if you need a Javascript library to consume it why
bother with JSON? The library can parse N-Triples easily. I don't
think that publishing two ways of expressing RDF in JSON is worth it
any more.

So uh, no I guess I can't think of another way of reducing the confusion.

Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 23:15:21 UTC

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