- From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:43:32 +0100
- To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: msporny@digitalbazaar.com, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
* [2011-03-24 22:27:02 -0400] Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> écrit: ] Well, then do I have a solution for you! ] The JSON for an RDF graph is an array of arrays, each of which has ] three elements, each of which are strings. Each of the three-element ] arrays encodes a triple ... [You should be able to guess the rest.] ] Done! Let's ratify this at the first F2F, declare victory, and be the ] first W3C WG in a long time to finish early. This is not very far from what we see in terms of SPARQL results format and such today. Instead of a string, you have a small dictionary with type, value and maybe language and datatype keys if appropriate. It is valid JSON. It is incredibly inconvenient to work with. Users of JSON, as I understand it, like their main objects to be (nested) dictionaries with simple keys. They also like what could be called a "subject-oriented" representation where they can think in terms of a thing or object that has properties. The do not like dealing with tuples or statements. This is the impedance mismatch. -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 14:44:01 UTC