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

Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 22:16:20 +0000
Message-ID: <4D7407B4.1000307@epimorphics.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 06/03/11 21:58, Nathan wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> I agree, needs written up in a usecases for json wiki page, if you can't
> wait that long then do see the thread which started here:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Feb/0072.html
>
> What you mention is "RDF in JSON", something which nobody seems that
> keen to do, although I still maintain we need both!

So do I.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Feb/0112.html

	Andy

>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
> Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Hi Manu,
>>
>> I'm sorry if I missed anything, I didn't follow [JSON] too closely,
>> but has there been any discussion/writeup on use cases for RDF-in-JSON?
>>
>> I'm tempted to argue that the format should be the simplest thing that
>> could possibly work. Perhaps a list of objects, each with "s", "p",
>> "o" keys, plus bits for node types, datatypes, language tags.
>>
>> My impression is that some in the TF would strongly disagree with
>> that, and have something completely different in mind, and I'd like to
>> understand what they actually want to *do* with the format.
>>
>> I think a wiki page that lists use cases would be terrific.
>>
>> Best,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6 Mar 2011, at 20:46, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have ACTION-16[1], which is to effectively summarize positions on RDF
>>> in JSON in an attempt to figure out the starting document for the JSON
>>> work. While attempting to summarize positions, I realized very quickly
>>> that not everyone in the Task Force had responded and even when they
>>> did, I found it difficult to tease the nuances out of their statements.
>>>
>>> So, instead I've placed a quick survey up on the wiki. I hope that this
>>> will be more accurate than attempting to summarize positions (and
>>> inevitably getting someones position wrong).
>>>
>>> I have already sent this link out to the RDF WG JSON TF (acronym
>>> c-c-c-combo!)
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-JSON#RDF_in_JSON_Design_Requirements
>>>
>>>
>>> If you are not in the JSON TF but would like to express your position,
>>> please do so by following the link above and noting your preferences
>>> under the section titled "RDF in JSON Design Requirements".
>>>
>>> -- manu
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/16
>>>
>>> --
>>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
>>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>>> blog: Towards Universal Web Commerce
>>> http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/01/31/web-commerce/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2011 22:17:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC