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

Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:37:35 +0000
Message-ID: <4D74D18F.6040503@webr3.org>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Michael Hausenblas wrote:
> 
>> 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...
> 
> +1
> 
> I think you have a very valid point, here. I came up with a proposal, 
> called JTriples [1] - not pretty, still some open issues (re literals) 
> but might serve as a basis for exploration.

I hate to say this, but if the problem is web developers who do not know 
RDF or, worse, who are averse to RDF because they see it as too complex, 
then surely the last thing we want to do is give them raw RDF triples in 
almost their purest form?

Would simply K/V objects with a subject (id) set not be more inline with 
what they're used to & indeed want?

Best,

Nathan
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 12:38:22 UTC

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