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

Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements

From: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:00:56 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=1wAVA8Z9hx9j+jNLdf7PZTQ8dXyT421GkwXtR@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Richard, all,

> Thanks. There's one thing I don't understand: This looks to me like a use case for plain vanilla JSON, and not like a use case for a JSON+RDF format. The service in question doesn't appear to be using anything besides vanilla JSON in its responses.

Sure, this (today) is a classical case for vanilla JSON. Just as you
can get a vanilla JSON representation of the JSON article (recursion
FTW!) in Freebase
(http://www.freebase.com/experimental/topic/standard/en/json), or its
RDF counterpart (http://rdf.freebase.com/rdf/en.json), I envision
cool-semantic-image-site.example.org to return vanilla JSON, or RDF in
form of JSON in the future, if, and only if, what this WG comes up
with is usable.

To make it a little more concrete:
http://about.ookaboo.com/a/ookaboo_api/documentation. Again, all names
used as examples, I don't mean to pick on anyone (well, except for
W3Schools maybe).

Does this make more sense now?

Best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas Steiner, Research Scientist, Google Inc.
http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 14:02:10 UTC

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