- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:05:06 +0000
- To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: richard@cyganiak.de, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 24/03/11 11:36, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Richard Cyganiak<richard@cyganiak.de> > Subject: [JSON] Classifying the use cases > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:42:10 -0500 > >> I moved the JSON use cases to a separate page: >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-JSON-UC >> >> In light of recent discussions, I thought it would be easy to classify >> them into a few main groups, so I had a go at it. Here are the groups: >> >> 1 Add (some of) the benefits of RDF to existing JSON services > [...] >> 2 Use JSON syntax to interact with a SPARQL store (or other RDF backend) > [...] >> 3 Publish idiomatic, developer-friendly JSON from the RDF data model > [...] >> 4 View arbitrary JSON as RDF > [...] > >> The main questions that arose from the exercise for me are: >> >> a) #4 feels clearly out of scope. Perhaps #1 and #3 as well. Or not? > > The charter says "Define and standardize a JSON Syntax for RDF [that is] > as complete as possible", so I think that one could argue that all of > the above are out of scope. However, I think that #4 would be the flip > side of the charter and thus could thus be argued to be in scope, and > that #3 and #1 are reasonable corollaries of the charter and thus could > thus be argued to be in scope. This leaves, to me, #2 as the only group > that is clearly out of scope, as there is nothing in the charter about a > JSON syntax for SPARQL results, and, anyway, shouldn't this be in the > scope of whatever WG is doing SPARQL? Sort-of. True for SPARQL SELECT and ASK results, but that is going on anyway in the SPARQL-WG. Richard said "SPARQL store", which I read as including the SPARQL RDF Dataset Protocol (possibly to be renamed with s/Dataset/Graph Store/). That works on exchange of RDF graphs. SPARQL results includes CONSTRUCT and DESCRIBE which are graphs. Plain-old GET of a graph requesting application/rdf+json is also #2. The "other RDF backend" being rather trivial. The missing piece for #2 for this group is a serialization in JSON for RDF graphs and, to my reading, is squarely in-charter. Andy > > [...] > >> Best, >> Richard > > peter >
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 12:06:04 UTC