Re: Google preferring JSON LD

On 9 February 2016 at 19:55, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
wrote:

> Thought: why are other RDF serializations not supported?
>

Solid, for example, already supports all major W3C recommendations e.g.
Turtle, RDF/XML, RDFa (still a bit sketchy in places, but improving!).

I'd like to see TriG and n3 come into consideration in the medium term.

Slight issue is, in the context of the current life time time of the WG,
the charter (rightly or wrongly) specifically says the social syntax must
be JSON.  While not necessarily my preferred serialization, it seems to be
the closest we've come to something that various stake holders can
compromise on.  Changing the charter at this point I think would be a lot
of effort.

Which serializations would you suggest, and why?


>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "
> > I will try to get some more detailed statistics published from Google,
> but
> > as a first approximation I think I can reasonably share that we are
> seeing
> > JSON-LD on several million sites. Prior to
> >
> https://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/improved-sitelinks-search-box.html
> > it was relatively obscure, except for use in email e.g. see
> > https://developers.google.com/schemas/formats/json-ld . Since JSON-LD
> only
> > became a W3C Recommendation in January 2014 this is pretty healthy
> adoption.
> >
> > I should also mention that while JSON-LD is increasingly favoured as a
> > preferred syntax (over microdata/rdfa) for many Google features/products,
> > there are some for which Microdata continues to be the preferred format.
> > Since schema.org is defined in a syntax-neutral manner this is a
> relatively
> > minor complication.
> >
> > See also https://developers.google.com/structured-data/ ->
> > https://developers.google.com/structured-data/rich-snippets/products ->
> > https://support.google.com/merchants/answer/6069143?hl=en
> >
> > danbri@google.com
> > "
> >
> > https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/27#issuecomment-179207196
> >
> > I would like to offer this as new information Tanek's comment "JSON LD
> is a
> > non starter"
> >
> > IMHO, this is strong evidence that this group should be standarizing
> around
> > this W3C REC, and push alternatives further towards a note.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>