Re: [JSON] PROPOSAL: Syntax structure should be object-based

On 03/15/11 23:49, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> As I've said before, my organization would uses triple-based JSON
> serializations of RDF, but does not feel strongly that it needs
> standardization. We do not and would not expect to use an object-based
> RDF-in-JSON syntax. I do not expect that we would object to the work.

Would your organization use something that looked like this?

[
   {"__subject": "<http://example.org>",
    "<http://vocabs.example.org/v1#predicate>": "Foo 1"},
   {"__subject": "<http://example.org>",
    "<http://vocabs.example.org/v1#predicate2>": "Foo 2"},
   },
   ...
]

> My main concern would be whether this Working Group has the right
> composition to effectively enact this proposal if a core goal is to
> increase adoption by the JSON developer community.

I would strike "JSON developer" and use the word "Web developer"
instead. Every Web developer that has had to interface with other
Web-based systems has used JSON at some point. Every JavaScript
developer is familiar with the syntax. In other words, I don't think
there is such a thing as the "JSON developer community" (even though I
may slip and use the terminology from time to time).

So, I think the question should be: "Does this Working Group have the
right composition to effectively enact this proposal if a core goal is
to increase adoption by the Web developer community?"

I think we can make a good first pass at it and then get lots of input
from a broader community. I would hope that the World Wide Web
Consortium, of all organizations, would be able to find the right mix of
people. Who do you think is missing, Lee? Perhaps we should invite them
as Invited Experts?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Payment Standards and Competition
http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/02/28/payment-standards/

Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 14:39:37 UTC