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

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

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:32:59 +0000
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20130C2B-AEE7-4E68-972A-CB03817FEBA7@cyganiak.de>
To: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Will,

I have difficulties trying to understand what you're getting at.

Can you re-state this in terms of one of the existing use cases (or a new use case)? Or failing that, an example? Can you suggest changes to the wording of the use cases that would make the emphasis you'd like to see more explicit?

Thanks,
Richard


On 25 Mar 2011, at 09:41, William Waites wrote:

> * [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
> piecewise.
> 
> 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
> way.
> 
> Just suggesting that some more explicit attention be 
> given to the process of *de*serialisation when considering
> the various proposals.
> 
> Cheers,
> -w
> 
> -- 
> 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 11:33:40 UTC

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