- From: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:00:56 +0100
- 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