JSON TF : what's our goal?

• From the RDF-WG charter:
  

  Define and standardize a JSON Syntax for RDF (see the Workshop result page for further references). The goal is to provide an RDF serialization as complete as possible (including to multiple graphs and graph stores, see work item listed below), but features may be ignored and special syntax features may be introduced if that would greatly facilitate the adoption of the JSON encoding by the Web Application developers’ community.

• a deliverable is expected as a JSON Syntax spec
• Stuff from RDF Next Step Workshop
  
  • Pros
    • Allows web authors (Javascript, HTML5, ... developers) more easily use rdf data with existing tools and techniques
    • Multiple JSON formats and implementations (some interoperable) already exist showing interest in this work
  • Cons
    • Current JSON formats are not aligned - differnent approaches - making it JSON-user friendly versus making it familiar to existing RDF users.
    • Needs some R&D and alignment.
    • Risk that the result would be some standard that would not be adopted if it was not 'web author' friendly.

The discussions so far, in a rush ( 1 )

The discussions so far, in a rush ( 2 )

No starting document(s) =! a lot of inputs

• RDF JSON, by Talis.
• JSON-LD, by Manu Sporny.
• JRON by Sandro Hawke.
• JSON serialization in the Linked Data API.
• SPARQL Query Results in JSON by DAWG.
• JSN3 by Nathan.
• Flat triples approach to RDF graphs in JSON by Dominik Tomaszuk
• Ideas and issues from the community from RDF Core Work Items build on RDF/NextStepWorkshop, are reproduced below.
• JTriples by Michael Hausenblas
• RDFj by Mark Birbeck

A lot of use cases

1. Add (some of) the benefits of RDF to existing JSON services
   • Migrating to Semantic Web Services
   • Generalized storage of Semantic Data in Web Services
   • Expose a service that internally uses RDF in a JSON-friendly way
   • View as RDF
2. Use JSON syntax to interact with a SPARQL store (or other RDF backend)
• Developing a Javascript application that interacts with a graph store
• Access CONSTRUCT/DESCRIBE query results from JSON apps
• Send RDF to a graph store
• DF transfer between systems
3. Publish idiomatic, developer-friendly JSON from the RDF data model
• Universal Payment Standard for the Web
• Traditional JSON API over an RDF store
4. View arbitrary JSON as RDF
• Treating JSON data as RDF for use in Data Spaces
5. Other use cases
• Digital Signatures on Graphs
• Pulling In Data From An External Linked Data Service

JSON TF : Open Issues on the tracker

• Open Issues on the tracker
• ISSUE 2 - What existing proposal, if any, should be the starting point/default for the JSON design?
• initial response in the wiki area - http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/TF-JSON#Inputs
• ISSUE 16 - What is the normative serialization of the JSON grammar?
• RFC4627: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt - +2 votes
• ECMA-262 5th Edition: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/ECMA-262.pdf
• json.org: http://json.org/

JSON TF : Stuff on the wiki

Stuff now on the Wiki:

• JSON User Segments - The segments of the Web developer community that are being addressed via this work.
• Use cases - A set of use cases that the group would like to support.
• JSON Design Requirements - A list of questions on particular design questions that are being considered.
• Semantics of JSON - Assumptions about the definition of JSON being used by this Working Group.
• JSON Serialization Examples - Examples of marking up content in each serialization language.
• JSON Syntax Options - A discussion of the various syntax options of the serializations introduced so far.

JSON TF : Practical progress track

An idea: a mind-map ( tomorrow ) to map topics and ideas...

• Market segments -> JSON Example serialization by example == ISSUES ON PRACTICAL REAL EXAMPLES

JSON TF : Market User: Producer and Consumer

• comparison of different market user views
  

JSON TF : Market User - version 2 - by Sandro

• Group A
  Developers who want a simple JSON view of their application data. These are the folks using all the popular json APIs, such as twitter, facebook, flickr, etc, etc.
• Group B
  -- Developers who want a simple JSON view of arbitrary RDF triples. These are the folks happy to use things like Talis' RDF JSON, JTriples, etc.
• Group C
  -- Developers who want RDF triples, but are willing to use a library or API to get it. This group would be satisfied by something that worked for Group B, since a library could easily extract the triples.
• NEW - Group D
  -- Developers who want a simple JSON view of a limited subset of RDF triples, such a tree-shaped data without any language tags or dates. This group would also be satisfied by something that worked for Group B; they just don't need as complete a format.

Is it a complete view?

Some combinations emerging for two different syntaxes RDF in JSON:

• B and C
• A and C - not everyone see a distintiction between them

JSON TF : focus on the practical aspect of JSON maybe as a start?

• comparison of different syntaxes completed: merging with correct market users? what's the next action to a better comprehension?
  
• more stuff on the Wiki on the better comprehension: collecting more examples and ideas to make for a classical web dev : maybe using a survey?
•