- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:14:36 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Aug 25, 2011, at 14:54 , Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Ivan, > > On 24 Aug 2011, at 11:44, Ivan Herman wrote: >> 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... > > The target audience for this simple-triple-interchange would be RDF geeks, right? So we have two options: > > 1. take the popular N-Triples format, which accidentally became a quasi-standard and is already known and implemented by most of the target audience, and turn it into a proper W3C Recommendation > > 2. invent yet another completely new format on the assumption that all RDF geeks are going to love it because it uses JSON, and will abandon N-Triples for it Well, this would keep us busy, wouldn't it? AFAIK, you do not have enough on your plate:-) Jokes aside, of course you are right that #1 has this status. The question is whether we see a large expansion of new tools and environments that will want to include such simple-triple-interchange format or not. For the new implementations JSON might be simpler. But all this issue (which I raised without seriously pushing for it) might have become moot after yesterday's discussion on the call... Ivan > > Best, > Richard > > > >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---- 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
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 13:12:08 UTC