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

Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:12:56 +0000
Message-ID: <4D8C5C98.2080702@webr3.org>
To: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Steve Harris wrote:
> I'm also not keen on [[ ]] for RDF collections, but don't see a sensible alternative.

The main alternatives are to simply not include support for either 
multiple values or RDF Collections.

[[ ]] is unexpected for JSON users, and I fear that in reality people 
will simply think we are mad, after all the context under which I 
proposed the [[ ]] syntax was for a machine optimized RDF+N3 in JSON, 
and not what we appear to be looking at creating now (what I'd refer to 
loosely as Data Objects).

Looking at this practically, most of our target market do not have the 
concept of multiple values, nor do they have support for multiple values 
in their stacks. They do however work with arrays and collections 

I'd actually propose that we drop multiple value support and keep the [] 
notation for RDF collections.

To illustrate, if somebody has a property with multiple values for the 
label, they will typically write:

   "labels": ["Foo", "Bar"],

Notice that's plural "labels" not singular "label", my way of language 
they are saying "this is a collection of labels", and that is the most 
common usage - indeed it's practically about the only option many 
developers have in their non-RDF tech stacks.

This approach of only supporting RDF Collections (producing JS Arrays) 
makes sense to people. [[ ]] syntax and "multiple values" do not.

On the RDF side, surely we can create some properties if we need to? 
rdf:labels -> a collection of rdf:label relating to the subject.


Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 09:14:08 UTC

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