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

Re: [JSON] Meeting TOMORROW Monday, March 21st

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:22:15 +0000
Message-ID: <4D8661F7.1020705@epimorphics.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 20/03/11 17:16, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Agenda
> 1. General discussion on what we're attempting to accomplish with
>     the various communities and long-term (market segments)
>     http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON_User_Segments
> 2. JSON as RDF Proposal
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0447.html

That's very much making JSON appear as RDF; JSON source, RDFish application.

This can be contrasted with RDF for JSON: making published RDF 
accessible to "normal" JSON applications, with varying degress of "RDF 
ness" in the JSON application.

PROPOSAL: The RDF Working Group JSON Task Force will work on a way of
making published RDF accessible to JSON applications.

Unlike a serialization of RDF in JSON may be lossy - i.e. when presented 
to the application some details may be lost (e.g. some datatypes).

Drawn in a Sandro-matrix: with levels of data publishers:

level P1: RDF publisher willing to publish according to a fixed, 
universal JSON presentation

level P2: RDF publisher willing to provide a JSON friendly form to all 
applications; (i.e. one presentation, but specific to this data).

level P3: RDF publisher willing to provide a JSON friendly form based on 
the application accessing the data (i.e. several presentations, based on 
this data and accessing application)

Group A1: applications willing to do what ever it takes to get 
RDF-published data (inc. read Turtle)

Group A2: applications wanting a JSON data structure

Group A3: applications willing to use a library/API


> 3. Express all RDF in JSON Proposal
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0450.html
> 4. Addressing multiple, seemingly divergent communities
>     * For example: Can we draw consensus by combining object-based
>                    vs. triple-based formats into a single format?
> 5. Review/Explanation/QA on proposed formats
>     http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-JSON#Inputs
Received on Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:22:54 UTC

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