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

Re: [JSON] object-based JSON vs. triple-based JSON

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 21:17:33 -0500
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1299723453.2186.190.camel@waldron>
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 16:37 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 03/09/11 15:10, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 14:44 -0500, Manu Sporny wrote:
> >> Just wanted to get some thoughts down while they were fresh in my mind
> >> concerning the two camps issue related to RDF in JSON. Instead of
> >> defining these two camps as "human-friendly" and "machine-friendly",
> >> perhaps it would be better to define the two camps as "object-based" and
> >> "triple-based"
> >
> > [offlist, but feel free to quote and reply on-list if you like.]
> Sandro - responding onlist because you (always?) make good points and I
> want to make sure that I'm being crystal clear and making sense (as I've
> failed to do that several times in these discussions and I don't want
> that to continue to muddy the waters).
> > I disagree with several steps of your argument here, but I agree we
> > should focus on object-based instead of triple-based approaches, so I
> > think I'll just leave it there.
> Don't just leave it there! :) If there are holes in my argumentation, we
> should expose them so that we're sure of the reason(s) we're picking one
> approach over the other.

I dunno, the lessons learned from RDFa and RDF/XML are interesting, but
I suspect we would never reach consensus on the conclusion.  I mean, I
don't have much hard data; mostly I have random hearsay, clever
theories, and my own complicated feelings about past mistakes.  Unless
I'm the only one like that, it will be an entertaining but fairly
unproductive discussion.

I'd rather spend my time on issues more immediate to our deliverables
(cf my message of a few minutes ago about why not just use Turtle).

    -- Sandro

> > Well, maybe one thing.  You claim RDF/XML is a failure based on it not
> > being indexed by search engines.  But you say JSON is a success.  So,
> > using your metric: how many search engines index JSON....?  
> > 
> > The point is that RDF/XML is not part of the HTML Web, and that's why
> > it's not indexed by search engines.   I think that's also the main
> > reason RDFa has a healthier adoption curve; it leverages the Web better.
> > It's not clear to me these arguments apply to this JSON argument.
> Yes, good point - that's true. I wasn't trying to say that "you must be
> indexed by search engines to be successful". What I was attempting to
> convey were two separate points about how to measure success:
> 1. One metric that you can use to tell if JSON is successful is the
>    number of web developers that immediately think of JSON when they
>    want to transmit data to/from a Web Service (millions of developers).
>    That is the sort of mindshare that we want with RDF in JSON.
> 2. One metric that you can use to tell if HTML+RDFa is succeeding
>    is the number of search engine companies indexing the data (every
>    single one). There may be many other metrics. What metric would
>    you like to use to state that RDF/XML was successful?
> There were also two separate points about /why/ each was successful:
> 1. JSON was successful because it was directly aligned with a data
>    model that many people were already using (JavaScript/associative
>    arrays).
> 2. HTML+RDFa is succeeding because it is aligned with a data model
>    that many people were already using (HTML).
> We could apply the points above to RDF/XML like so:
> 1. [Measure of success] Hardly anyone wants to use RDF/XML when they
>    need to transmit data to/from a Semantic Web Service. I think many
>    people would pick TURTLE over "RDF/XML" for almost anything RDF
>    related today. So, RDF/XML fails the "mindshare" test.
> 2. [Measure of success] The people that create the Web are not
>    publishing RDF/XML in large quantities and therefore search
>    companies are not indexing RDF/XML data feeds.
> 3. [why was RDF/XML not successful] RDF/XML did not succeed because it
>    was not aligned with a data model that many people were using.
> So, in order for RDF in JSON to be successful, I think we could use
> these metrics:
> 1. Millions of web developers immediately think "RDF in JSON" (or
>    whatever we end up calling it) when they need to transmit data
>    to/from a Semantic Web Service. They will think this because
>    they already use JSON and "RDF in JSON" will not be that different
>    from what they use today.
> 2. "RDF in JSON" succeeds because it is aligned with a data model
>    that many people are already using (object-based JSON).
> Did that clarify what I was attempting to convey or do you still see
> major holes in the argument?
> -- manu
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 02:17:43 UTC

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