- From: David Wood <dpw@talis.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:07:59 -0400
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Mar 16, 2011, at 10:59, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 16 Mar 2011, at 01:11, Manu Sporny wrote: >> I know that Richard did a good job writing up >> an argument for a triple-based serialization, but even the write-up >> wasn't a glowing recommendation for that approach. > > Fair enough. > >> PROPOSAL: The RDF Working Group should design the RDF in JSON syntax >> structure to reflect the object-based data model that is in wide use in >> the Web developer community. The group recognizes that both the >> triple-based and iterative-reduction based approaches are useful and >> have a purpose to serve, but the time it would take to standardize two >> RDF in JSON syntaxes may impact the ability for the Working Group to >> meet its tight 1-year deadline. > > I'd prefer not having to vote on this proposal yet, because there are certain clarifications and discussions that I'd like to see before making up my mind. > > My concerns here are: > > 1. It appears to me that the goal of the RDF-in-JSON approach as championed by Manu is not to serialize an RDF graph in a JSON syntax, but to standardize a system of JSON conventions that allow parsing of the output of existing JSON APIs (perhaps with small modifications) as RDF. > > 2. If I am mistaken in thinking so, then I observe that a lot of Manu's arguments in favour of the object-based approach fall apart, especially those regarding “picking up the developers where they are right now.” > > 3. If my observation regarding the goal of this RDF-in-JSON approach is correct, then I think we need discussion about charter scope and WG composition, as the goal appears somewhat broader than what the WG was chartered for. Perhaps, but this seems like a reasonable conversation to have. Let's get the proposal fully on the table and then take it off if we need to (or coordinate with other groups as appropriate). Regards, Dave > > Best, > Richard
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:36:19 UTC