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

Re: JSON Emergency Brake

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:40:19 -0400
Message-ID: <4E5AEE03.30707@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 08/24/2011 05:21 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> Prefixing is a good choice when there are likely to be lots of terms
> from multiple namespaces, but I think that's likely to be the
> exception than the rule in applications using JSON. We're not really
> talking general-purpose interchange here, more like Web 2.0 API-style
> data provisioning. In this context, by far the most common scenarios I
> reckon will just use a bunch of terms from a single namespace and/or a
> small total number of terms - both adequately (and more simply)
> available without prefixes.

Danny, this begs the question, doesn't it? That is, if I assume what you 
say above, I come to the same conclusion that you have - we don't need 

However, the raw data shows us that there is quite a bit of vocabulary 
mixing that is already happening out there - in TURTLE, in RDFa, etc. It 
is true that these are early days and that practice might change based 
on precedents like schema.org.

As for this:

 > [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/namespaces-considered-harmful

Not everyone in the Microformats community (myself included) agrees with 
that position for all languages:


Have you had a look at Section 4.1 in the latest (as of 15 minutes ago) 
JSON-LD spec? What do you think of the first 3 paragraphs?

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Building a Better World with Web Payments
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 01:40:48 UTC

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