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

(emphasising round-trip) Re: [JSON] Classifying the use cases

From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:41:14 +0100
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110325094114.GR13317@styx.org>
* [2011-03-23 20:42:10 +0000] Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> écrit:

] I moved the JSON use cases to a separate page:
] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-JSON-UC

While I agree broadly with this categorisation and the
consensus that seems to be forming that #1-3 are in-scope
and #4 is out of scope I think there is a general skew
towards representing RDF in JSON and too little consideration
given to the reverse. This shows up throughout the 
discussions where people use phrases like "to publish
JSON" which except for a degenerate meaning where a client
might "publish" JSON to a server that then transforms it
to RDF in some way seems to show that the thinking is 
about how to look at RDF data and not how to create it

I am not talking about an unconstrained thing like #4. The
interaction might require some external shared knowledge
between the client and server in the case of a lossy
transformation. I certainly wouldn't want to get into
completely aribtrary JSON. But where the main data store
is RDF, and the interaction with the client software is
JSON, we need some consistent way to consume this JSON.
I hope we don't come up with something that means this 
always has to be done in a hand-crafted application-specific

Just suggesting that some more explicit attention be 
given to the process of *de*serialisation when considering
the various proposals.


William Waites                <mailto:ww@styx.org>
http://river.styx.org/ww/        <sip:ww@styx.org>
F4B3 39BF E775 CF42 0BAB  3DF0 BE40 A6DF B06F FD45
Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 09:41:43 UTC

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