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

Re: [JSON] The case for a triple-based approach

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:19:46 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTin2h7HOA-n89p=-RShjNPQMhirwBbiKDpkVFBiT@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 10 March 2011 16:01, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> Manu argued forcefully against doing the a triple-based JSON format. I'd like to balance this a bit. A decent case for the triple-based approach can be made as well:
> A simple format for serializing RDF triples in JSON. Starting points could be just an array of s-p-o objects, or Talis' RDF/JSON proposal. It would probably be quite verbose, but when looking at the JSON it's easy to see the triples. There wouldn't be many ways of serializing the same RDF graph into different JSON structures (besides ordering, whitespace etc).
> The main motivation would be as a result format for CONSTRUCT and DESCRIBE queries against SPARQL stores. So, server-side implementors would be SPARQL store vendors.

Don't we already *almost* have that?
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-json-res/  (WG Note not a REC, so far)

This handles "SPARQL variable binding and boolean query results" but
not RDF graph results. (Perhaps those could be encoded by acting as if
variables ?s ?p ?o and ?g were requested?).

While dependencies are no fun, I see the role of this group as being
to remove some of the noise and confusion from the RDF spec landscape.
So planning how this deliverable fits alongside rdf-sparql-json-res
would be prudent. Having SPARQL JSON results defined by two unrelated
specs could be confusing!


Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 15:20:22 UTC

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