- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:20:42 -0400
- To: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 03/16/11 14:31, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2011, at 18:02, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> If users have to call rdf_in_json.parse() then why shouldn't they
>> just use turtle.parse() instead?
>
> Because rdf_in_json.parse() would return something semi-sensible if
> you pass any JSON response (e.g., from the Twitter API as it exists
> today) through it.
>
> And if Twitter added a bit of '#':{...} magic to their JSON, then it
> could actually return properly modeled RDF.
>
> Getting Twitter to publish something that's understood by
> turtle.parse() would likely be harder.
>
> (I'm still not sure if I fully believe the above, but I guess this is
> what motivated JSON-LD.)
Yes, exactly! There are still things that need to be addressed with this
line of thinking, but certainly, this was the general approach behind
JSON-LD. It was also the thinking behind RDFj - Mark Birbeck and I
worked on JSON-LD together. Quite a number of JSON-LD features were
inspired by (or stolen from :)) RDFj.
This same strategy was also used for RDFa - layer on top of what web
developers are already publishing.
-- 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 19:21:11 UTC