Re: schema.org post about JSON-LD

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