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 13:05:16 +0000
Message-ID: <4D74D80C.4010602@webr3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2011, at 13:53 , Nathan wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>> Yes, I agree :) hence why mentioning,
>>
>> {s: subject1, p: property1, o: value1 }
>> {s: subject1, p: property2, o: value2 }
>>
>> vs
>>
>> {
>>  id: subject,
>>  property1: value1,
>>  property2: value2,
>> }
> 
> Oh that is what you were asking? I would probably say:
> 
> {
>   subject: <lala> ,
>   property: <blabla> ,
>   value : "adfasfas"
> }
> 
> ie, use that terminology and not the s,p,o. "property" and "value" is pretty much ubiquitous. But that is a detail.

yes :) although I'm suggesting the { id: subject ... } example as being 
perhaps more useful.

A survey may help here in the future!
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 13:07:01 UTC

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