- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 23:45:23 -0700
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
I would find it very depressing if schema.org went with JSON-LD instead of Turtle. Why go to something that doesn't completely line up with RDF when there is finally a nice format for RDF? peter On Jun 4, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > […] > > I love Turtle, but for schema.org's purposes (getting ordinary websites to expose triples), I think it's best to settle on exactly two syntaxes (RDFa and JSON-LD) for examples and instruction. And, of course, mention somewhere in the small print that microdata, microformats, turtle, and maybe even RDF/XML work just fine, too. > > I say two syntaxes, instead of just one, for the reason I heard Google's Jason Douglas (head of the Knowlege Graph program) explain nicely today: sometimes your data lines up with your text, in which case you use RDFa; sometimes it doesn't, in which case you use JSON-LD. > > With a "@context": "http://schema.org" included, people can write their RDF by writing perfectly normal-looking JSON. Turtle's nice, but for web developers, I'd bet normal-looking JSON is quite a bit nicer. This is an incredibly painless way to publish data to the world. > > -- Sandro
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 06:45:57 UTC