Re: schema.org post about JSON-LD

On 6/5/13 2:45 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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

+1

All they need to do is accept that <script/> is a mechanism for 
embedding RDF model based structured data islands inside HTML documents. 
As per my comment to Dan, this doesn't require anything more than 
acknowledge from Google re. best practice.


Kingsley
> 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
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen