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

Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON?

From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:34:52 -0400
Message-ID: <20110324.143452.2300338823451089837.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <alexhall@revelytix.com>
CC: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
From: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>
Subject: Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON?
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:19:09 -0500


> Respectfully speaking, I don't buy your assertion that the WG can't proceed without a
> crystal-clear understanding of all the intricacies or gaps in the various specs.
> The fact that there's confusion or ambiguity among some of the specs around JSON and Javascript
> hasn't stopped it from becoming a very useful tool for the web development community, and I don't
> think think it should stop us from coming up with something useful.
> If it helps, think of JSON as a collection of best practices for serializing simple key/value
> data structures from a variety of target languages into a Javascript syntax.  That's still a very
> useful thing to have even if it isn't "standardized".  As long as you stick with simple datatypes
> and data structures, you'll find pretty universal tool support for what you need to do.  If
> you're worried about standard behavior on some of the corner cases, then stay away from those
> corner cases.
> It shouldn't be the task of this WG to sort out all of the specs to come up with a "standard"
> JSON where there isn't one already.  IMHO our task is to identify and promote some best practices
> for using JSON with RDF; if the lack of a clear and unambiguous standard bothers you then maybe
> the WG can produce a working note as opposed to a recommendation.
> -Alex

Well, we are already in what appear to be the corner cases:
- colons in names
- multiple values for properties
- spaces in names indicating multiple properties
- URIs as names

Sure, the WG can make good, and effective, progress without knowing the
exact treatment of infinite numbers in JSON or just what UNICODE
characters are allowed or what UNICODE encoding is the default.
However, how can the WG make progress without knowing about multiple
values, in particular?  Although this might be esoteric for JSON it is
part of the bread-and-butter of RDF.


Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 18:35:33 UTC

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