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

Re: [JSON] Survey for design requirements

From: Thomas Steiner <tsteiner@google.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 09:00:06 +0100
Message-ID: <-7945399593513128148@unknownmsgid>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
So I *think* I now understand your intent.

Strike the "*"-s, this is what I wanted to express.



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 Friday, 11 March 2011 08:01:19 UTC

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