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

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

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:12:52 +0000
Message-ID: <4D836864.7000803@epimorphics.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

> I think there are some assumptions being made here that should not be
> made. Why does the process need to be reversible? Why are we assuming
> that the storage mechanism is a graph store? Why aren't the requirements
> and expectations application/standard specific?

We aren't assuming that the storage mechanism is a graph store, but 
given a work package that is RDF-izing JSON, we seem to be assuming it 
definitely isn't and can't be with that service having to understand 
some domain-specific translation. Effectively, ruling out (web) graph 

It's a writable web - so far, the emphasis is on reading JSON as RDF. 
Those applications are level 5(?), 6 and 7 may wish to output to graph 
stores or other RDF-based systems. It's webapps working acorss more than 
one service.

What about the complement to parseJsonAsRDF(str)?    outputRDFfromJSON(obj).

> I'm assuming that the main thing you want is for the output format to be
> the same as the input format, but I don't see why that necessarily has
> to be the case. For example, Twitter supports the following output
> formats: JSON, XML, RSS, ATOM. However, it only supports XML and JSON as
> input.

Twitter is defining it's own ecosystem.  RSS and ATOM are much more 
about output than input anyway - it's their primary focus.

Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 14:13:28 UTC

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