W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > August 2011

RE: dropped Basic spec?

From: Brian Peterson <publicayers@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:54:46 -0400
To: "'Manu Sporny'" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-id: <00a701cc5650$76928cf0$63b7a6d0$@net>
I perused the latest spec (the refactoring and edits you made helped a lot,
Manu) and I agree with you guys. I always had in mind that the basic spec
was just a subset of the overall spec, not really a separate one that might
diverge from the primary one. 

I wouldn't mind seeing an subset called out in the spec itself as the
"basic" level, giving publishers and consumers a standardized low-barrier of
entry. Something like 
 * All JSON objects are interpreted as resources (subjects/objects) 
 * @subject is the IRI for that resource (anonymous if none)
 * Properties are tokens with context mappings (no IRIs and no CURIEs)
 * JSON arrays are used for multiple values for a property

This makes for a simple, consistent interpretation of what a JSON object
represents (rather than sometimes being a resource and sometimes a literal).
You won't need to allow for IRIs or CURIEs as properties. I think this could
make for faster processing. A service could commit to consuming or producing
resources using the "basic" subset, requiring just a "basic" processor or

I do have a little mental hiccup on @subject versus using @iri in a JSON
object. Is this allowed:
    @subject : "http//ex.org/r/1",
    "knows" : {
      @iri : "http://ex.org/r/2", 
      name : "Jerome"

Or can @iri only be used like that if it is the only key in the object? If
it is allowed, then is it the same if I use another @subject instead of the


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-linked-json-request@w3.org [mailto:public-linked-json-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Manu Sporny
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 3:24 PM
> To: public-linked-json@w3.org
> Subject: Re: dropped Basic spec?
> On 08/08/11 15:05, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> > On 8/8/11 1:19 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> >> Regarding complexity, we need to consider the audience. I think that
> >> JSON-LD implementations will pretty much need to implement most of
> the
> >> spec (although normalization, expansion, and framing could be
> >> considered to be optional bits by an implementation, IMO). I think
> the
> >> basic spec was really targeted at publishers, to give them an easy
> way
> >> into it.
> >
> > Yes.
> What Gregg said.
> The only thing I'd add is that we will probably want to create a really
> high-level introduction to JSON-LD. Basically, showing people how they
> can use pre-created JSON-LD contexts to mark up people, places, events,
> recipes, etc. This document shouldn't take spec-form, but should rather
> be written as one or more "Beginner's Guide" articles.
> The problem with the Basic spec is that I conflated what Kingsley,
> Glenn
> and Brian wanted based on their e-mails to the mailing list. I thought
> they wanted the roughly the same thing in the beginning, and that
> turned
> out to be a completely false premise. The existence of the Basic spec
> only serves to reinforce that false premise and take up precious
> editorial cycles.
> We do need to replace it with a series of Beginner's Guide articles.
> Any
> volunteers willing to take a shot at writing some prose targeted at Web
> developers already using JSON?
> -- manu
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released
> http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/05/05/payswarm-sandbox/
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 04:55:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:53:18 UTC