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

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

From: Alex Hall <alexhall@revelytix.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:24:48 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTimZMHVDSOVtTgwnR9aNOvz71hV0ZkNdSXdEtXpZ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

OK, looking at the charter, it is the task of the working group to "define
and standardize a JSON Syntax for RDF" so I'm mistaken here.

> 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?
>

In one breath you say that the lack of clarity around the JSON specs may
stop us from being able to write a spec.  In the next you say the job of the
WG is to write a standard.  (Are spec and standard synonymous?  I really
don't know.)  I don't disagree with either of those.  I'm just saying that
there are other useful outcomes than a standard, if it comes down to it.

-Alex
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 19:25:21 UTC

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