Re: RDF & JSON

+1  -- I'm all for it.

.. I'll expect that this will include, but won't be limited to, the
position that there may be no one perfect JSON serialization of RDF,
but that this is not the end of the road. I.e. there are still
pressing use cases where a JSON "digest" is a preferable option, to
the consumer, than RDF proper. And thus that there is lots of
opportunity in aligning and consolidating the current techniques for
that. To me it's more about a specified lowering (and ideally lifting)
of "ordinary looking" JSON.

(Note that I'm not a W3C member, and usually participate in these
matters on an on-and-off basis. But I have done work on RDF+JSON and
have a bunch of opinions (Gluon, SparqlTree...). ;) )

Best regards,
Niklas


On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> What are the odds of getting a group (pref through w3c) set-up quickly so
> that all of those working on and interesting in RDF+JSON can openly discuss,
> align and essentially do the heavy lifting pre-standardization?
>
> I'm very aware that there are multiple people with multiple approaches all
> working at the same time here, some communication but not loads, and that we
> could all either align and make progress, or end up with another 5
> semi-supported rdf+json variants before any official effort starts, which
> wouldn't really be ideal.
>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
>

Received on Monday, 29 November 2010 17:45:22 UTC