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 15:59:39 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=Vzw5jCk2qjQM43J+PuQfpPi2MDH8HWqfZOMV8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Richard,

> 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.

Yes, the example uses vanilla JSON today. Tomorrow JSON+RDF might be
the matter of choice, though, when the originating data were triples
(like in the Freebase example, or if you think "DBpedia API").

> 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.

Think the other way round. Think from the publisher's side. The thing
IMHO is not necessarily that Joe's life gets easier, it simply doesn't
get any more complicated if he retrieves JSON+RDF. The publisher can
return the data closer ("triple-equivalent") to its original "correct"
representation, maintaining the whole semantics.

If you take vanilla JSON today, there is no easy way back to the
originating triples. With JSON+RDF there would be, while still not
making Joe's life  any more complex. It's more about the "purity" of
the data representation...

I might have caused more confusion than before now... Still I think my
point makes sense.


Thomas Steiner, Research Scientist, Google Inc.
http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 15:01:23 UTC

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