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

Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:13:01 +0100
Cc: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <95A24700-71C2-4801-AB71-AF28C44A3932@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
I have a slightly more general requirement, and I miss these in the various items below.

I believe the reason of doing JSON/RDF is not to please the application developers who already know and are happy to use RDF. After all, for those, whether using Turtle or JSON as a serialization does not really mean a difference: it is all just text.

What I am trying to find is the sweet spot that would create a bridge between them and those Web Application Developers who do not know RDF or, worse, who are averse to RDF because they see it as too complex, researchy, etc (I think we all met these various memes around that). Doesn't that mean that to please those a JSON/RDF must be damn simple (even if it does not cover the whole of RDF), and maybe also include shorthands to make it even simpler (eg, default subjects to see only property value pairs, etc). At first glance this hints at something like the 's', 'p', 'o' format of Andy with some defaults here and there...

Put it another way, I am not sure our goal is to build a JSON serialization that would compete with Turtle. Only with N-Triples...


On Mar 6, 2011, at 21:46 , 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/

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 Monday, 7 March 2011 12:11:24 UTC

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