W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2007


From: Keith Alexander <k.j.w.alexander@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:56:59 +0100
To: cr <_@whats-your.name>, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.tx8d49zd63ayaz@keith-alexanders-computer.local>

> all im saying is feel free to invent what you want, but youre not  
> inventing the simplest thing that could work.

Maybe we need to define our terms - simple for what?

We think this RDF/JSON is simple for (eg):

* expressing the whole RDF model in a consistent, resource-centric  
* iterating over resources, properties of resources, and (typed) values of  
those properties
* accessing a specific property of a specific resource.
* knowing whether an object is a literal or a uri, or a typed literal, or  
has a language token.

and also relatively simple for being able to merge RDF from different  
sources (though not so simple as an array of triples).

If you can suggest a simpler way of achieving those aims, we'd be very  
happy to entertain it - or if you would persuade us of more important  
aims, that might be interesting too.

> youre also throwing away the ability to return graph results in a way  
> that the programmer might want to naturally loop over them. but then  
> SPARQL doestn really suport recursive query results so i could see why  
> that wasnt on the radar

Do you mean that resources should be nested? The trouble with nesting  
resources, is that it would be the publisher who decides, arbitrarily, how  
resources should be nested, The consumer then doesn't know where to find a  
given resource in the structure.



Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 12:04:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:02 UTC