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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:43:01 -0500
Cc: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <C10B58D4-D9A2-4727-9C3E-BD7C01125135@ihmc.us>
To: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>

On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Alex Hall wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
> Subject: Re: [JSON] I say again, what *is* JSON?
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:40:08 -0500
> 
> ...
> 
> So, I'm still confused as to exactly what JSON is.
> 
> 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.

It might well stop us being able to write a specification, though. 

> 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". 

Never mind the scare quotes. The *job* of the WG is to write a standard. 

> 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.

Well, the standard has to speak about them. Are they prohibited? Deprecated? Recommended against? Must tools produce an error when they see them? We have to take decisions about stuff like this. 

> 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. 

What we define for RDF and JSON will be a standard, like it or not. And I'm not using scare quotes. This implies a rather high degree of responsibility, more than just identifying a few best practices. 

> IMHO our task is to identify and promote some best practices

No, our task is to write a specification document for RDF. "Best practices" do not cut it.

> 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.

Why bother convening a WG, then? 

Pat

> 
> -Alex
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes





Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 18:43:41 UTC

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