W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: comments/questions on JSON-LD spec (but _not_ for the CG->WG transition!)

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:34:57 +0100
Message-ID: <4FDEE831.60908@epimorphics.com>
To: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 17/06/12 22:57, Pat Hayes wrote:
 > The arguments for JSON were, as I recall, that it provided a*simpler*
 > notation for RDF than, say, RDF/XML, and that it was very*natural*
 > to use JSON to express RDF structure. If this example is typical, I
 > would run screaming from JSON and stick to RDF/XML as a standard.

JSON-LD is closer in intent to RDFa - in this case, it adds (makes 
explicit) semantics of a JSON document while retaining the JSON 
document.  Like RDFa, you can encode a graph in JSON-LD but there are 
compromises - the data models are not the same so there is additional 
line noise.  If your purpose is to transfer RDF from A to B, you will be 
better off using Turtle.

Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 08:35:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:18 UTC