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

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

From: David Wood <dpw@talis.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:07:59 -0400
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6498D923-3A54-4F07-90BA-AD5CC505378E@talis.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
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).


> Best,
> Richard
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 17:36:19 UTC

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