Re: dropped Basic spec?

On Aug 8, 2011, at 9:55 PM, "Brian Peterson" <publicayers@verizon.net> wrote:

> 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
> handler. 
> 
> 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
> @iri?

Actually, I've suggested that we consolidate @subject and @iri, since { "@subject": "http://foo"} and {"@iri": "http://foo"} do exactly the same thing.

There are some normalization considerations, but I think we should consider eliminating @subject and just use @iri.

Gregg

> BP
> 
>> -----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 05:09:08 UTC