Re: representing deserialized RDF - N3, JSON-LD, RDFa, XML/RDF

On 11 December 2013 14:16, Adrian Gschwend <ktk@netlabs.org> wrote:

> On 11.12.13 14:02, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>
> >> I think it's much easier to write the necessary adapters than
> >> trying to come up with a "compromise" everybody agrees with.
>
> > Sure; as far as I understood, the purpose is to agree on some common
> >  format X, so that everybody writes adapters for their own library
> > from and to X. That way, we don't end up needing an adapters per
> > library for each other used library. But in some case, for
> > performance, that might just be required.
>
> Unless someone comes up with a good reason against I would vote for
> JSON-LD then.
>

I dont believe in the 'one format to rule them all' approach, we should try
and parse as much as we have libraries for.  This causes a split eco
system.  The whole point of RDF is interoperability.

But if we are to pick a winner, W3C RECs should probably be supported which
means RDF/XML and Turtle, and we have parsers for them already.  We can get
ready for JSON LD when it goes to REC.

I'm slightly baffled why we have so many libraries doing the same thing ...


>
> regards
>
> Adrian
>
>
> --
> Adrian Gschwend
> @ netlabs.org
>
> ktk [a t] netlabs.org
> -------
> Open Source Project
> http://www.netlabs.org
>
>