- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:59:15 +0100
- To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 30 Aug 2011, at 17:59, Steve Harris wrote: > On 2011-08-30, at 13:57, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> On 30 Aug 2011, at 08:56, Steve Harris wrote: >>>> Could JSON-LD be changed so that one can define an “RDF geek compatibility context” that directly results in this convenient form, without need for post-processing? >>> >>> That immediately makes me think of the "XML friendly" striped syntax of RDF/XML, i.e. hurts everyone, all the time. >> >> I asked whether we can get a profile of JSON-LD that's isomorphic to Talis RDF/JSON. You'll have to expand a bit on why that would hurt everyone, all the time. > > Because it would be a "special profile" of JSON-LD, just like RDF/XML is a special profile of XML, or RSS 1.0 was a special profile of RDF/XML. Though RSS had a schema, so it's a little less painful. These are completely different things. The “triple-friendly profile for JSON-LD” would be like a profile for RDF/XML that forbids all the optional variants so that there is just a single way of expressing an RDF graph as an XML tree (modulo ordering). Which would have been quite handy -- then you could *almost* write triple pattern queries with simple XPath (except for namespace prefixes and relative URIs). I want an RDF in JSON variant that allows me to write a triple pattern query in a simple JSON expression. Best, Richard
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 17:59:53 UTC