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

Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:30:34 +0000
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C5CE53A7-595F-4E7B-BCFC-57554FEF0E87@cyganiak.de>
To: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
Hi Thomas,

On 10 Mar 2011, at 14:00, Thomas Steiner wrote:
>> 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?

I don't know. Not to me anyways.

The use case uses vanilla JSON and not JSON+RDF as far as I can tell. So I don't understand how it's a use case for JSON+RDF.

There seems to be a use case in there for returning plain vanilla JSON from a Linked Data website (because developers love plain vanilla JSON!). It doesn't motivate why Joe wants JSON+RDF or how it solves any of his problems.

Best,
Richard




> 
> Best,
> Tom
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Steiner, Research Scientist, Google Inc.
> http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 14:31:11 UTC

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