Re: [JSON] RDF collections and JSON arrays

Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2011, at 9:06 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> On Mar 25, 2011, at 14:41 , Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 25, 2011, at 4:12 AM, Nathan wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> I dont think not supporting RDF collections is an option. There is lots of RDF out there that has a few pieces of OWL in it. OWL syntax in OWL/RDF uses RDF collections. If we don't support collections well enough to handle this, all the RDF<->JSON will break whenever it hits a piece of OWL. I think this would be a disaster, and would cause enough grief to make the JSON unusable in the wild.
>> Pat,
>>
>> much as I would like to have collections folded in somehow, I am not sure that statement is right. The discussion is a bit similar to what we had on the RDFa WG on whether RDFa should have some syntactic sugar for collections (and the decision is: no).
>>
>> I agree that collections are heavily used in OWL. However... my _feeling_ is that JSON will be used, primarily, for instance data. Ie, an RDF environment may of course have a reference to an OWL ontology, but the ontology itself, can be encoded in some other formats. That is because, again I believe so, applications that would really make use of the inference possibilities of OWL would be in some sort of a multi-parsing environment anyway, so they will not care.
>>
>> Put it another way: I do not think that many ontologies will be encoded in JSON. They will happily go on using turtle or, God forbid, RDF/XML, produced by tools like Protégé. We may not want to optimize on those.
> 
> Hmm. OK, point taken. I was thinking of all the owl:sameAs assertions out there, but of course these don't use collections. And I guess you don't find things like intersectionOf and the like in data either.
> 
> Hmmm. OK, I withdraw my howl. Still, it would be nice to have the JSON not actually break if it were to encounter the odd piece of OWL, if this could be arranged without too much pain.

Can't see any reason why it couldn't be arranged, certainly for an "RDF 
in JSON" triples based approach, rather than some data object style of JSON.

Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 19:52:00 UTC