- From: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:30:52 +0200
- To: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Richard, Gavin, all, > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: >> 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? Not sure all honestly. Naming it appropriately might help. Stating something like "uses JSON encoding technically, but does not feel like JSON actually" seems wrong, awkward, and a no-go. > ... 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. +1, but I said this before. > So uh, no I guess I can't think of another way of reducing the confusion. Me neither. Probably there is a way, though, we just don't see it yet :-D Best, Tom -- Thomas Steiner, Research Scientist, Google Inc. http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 09:31:36 UTC