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

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

From: Thomas Steiner <tsteiner@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:20:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4545260301651881110@unknownmsgid>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Cc: David Wood <dpw@talis.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hello all,

While I love "GRDDL for JSON" as a name, I'm still not sure it is a
generalizable functionality that would be straight-forward to offer.
As I said today on IRC, isn't it one-offs for each and every single
JSON data provider? Isn't the objective of this WG to come up with
something that JSON data providers would use in the first place? We
can still provide (or document how to provide)
mappings/goggles/"GRDDL", but in my opinion this shouldn't be our
primary goal. Lots of questions to be discussed at the F2F or earlier.
Maybe I simply got the concept wrong, though. Thanks for corrections
in either case.

Best,
Tom

Thank God not sent from a BlackBerry, but from my iPhone

On 16.03.2011, at 23:27, Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 16/03/11 17:07, David Wood wrote:
>> 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.
>
> The time argument only makes sense if you are talking about the same people swapping between the two extremes.  From the discussions so far, that's far from clear to me.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> I agree.
>
> Sometimes it sounds more like "GRDDL for JSON".  The mapping isn't universal - the generation of IRIs from data that has sufficiently unique keys is application dependent, for example.
>
>>>
>>> 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).
>
> Then the phrase "RDF in JSON" seems the wrong way round.  It's "JSON as RDF".
>
> PROPOSAL: The RDF Working Group JSON Task Force will work on way of mapping typical existing JSON data objects into a form that can be interpreted as RDF.
>
>
> Feel free to suggest a better wording - this is just a quick draft to try to find a proposal that is about the core issue directly, and not indirectly by talking about syntax structure.
>
>    Andy
>
>>
>> Regards, Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Best, Richard
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 23:21:33 UTC

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