- 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