- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:05:43 +0000
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 10/03/11 15:19, Dan Brickley wrote: > 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: >> >> >> WHAT IS IT >> >> 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). >> >> >> HOW WOULD IT BE USED >> >> 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) The SPARQL-WG has decided to take that NOTE and make it a REC. It uses structures, not encoding, for term typing. Andy
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2011 22:06:21 UTC