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

Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:05:06 +0000
Message-ID: <4D8B3372.5050403@epimorphics.com>
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

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