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

Re: NTriple vs. JSON... (Re: JSON Emergency Brake)

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:03:15 +0100
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6EA9C16B-7777-4CED-B712-B9BC35237D64@garlik.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
It's a very good point.

The original motivation for N-Triples was to be easy, and unambiguous to read for humans, whereas JSON has a bit more syntactic noise around it, but it's not that hard to read.

In any case, the trend seems to have moved towards using Turtle for humans, and N-Triples for easy-to-parse bulk dumps.

- Steve

On 2011-08-24, at 11:44, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Not directly related to Thomas' original issue, but it give me this unorthodox thought...
> My understanding is that the reason of having NTriples as well as the RDF/JSON stuff is to have a simple, easy-to-parse, easy-to-generate serialization of RDF triples, mostly to be consumed by machines. If we look at the fact that there are tons of JSON parsers out there already then... Why bothering about NTriple standardization? We can just define a serialization called something like simple-triple-interchange that happens to use JSON syntax for practical reasons...
> Just a thought...
> Ivan
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 11:30 , Thomas Steiner wrote:
>> 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
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 11:03:44 UTC

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