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

Re: Thoughts on framing, normalization, CURIEs

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:10:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAM=Pv=Q4tw+a+h5TVNwriCOejjiZ8jskGATkawvH7C=Ave37AA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
[21:12] <dlongley> the same graph can be represented in many different
ways in JSON-LD

Yup, which is confusing and makes it much harder to code against.

[21:12] <manu> Not dealing with normalization is a mistake that RDF
serializations have been making for years...

Right, RDF/XML has so many different possible serializations that it's
impractical to use standard XML processing tools (XPath, XSLT, XQuery
etc) on it. Which kind of defeats the object of having it in XML in
the first place.

If JSON-LD isn't recognisable as idiomatic JSON, it'll fail for the same reason.

There have been a few 'normalized RDF/XML' proposal, and a few people
have used them locally - but they've never really caught on, probably
because they do demand a normalization step.

JSON-LD normalization shouldn't really be needed (it suggests there's
too much complexity), and definitely not by regular JSON users.

[21:29] <manu> I mean, we've considered dropping CURIEs many times at
Digital Bazaar... and every time we come to the same conclusion: "The
number of terms that we're going to be using in these digital
contracts is going to explode when 3rd parties start extending the
digital contracts to suit their needs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_ain't_gonna_need_it ?



-- 
http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 16:10:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:35 GMT