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

Re: JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2011-07-04

From: Dean Landolt <dean@deanlandolt.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 11:48:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPm8pjrFhqMv5sgdr_pEf=z1J0LWO=WFWagA7tLNTFXgaqnB0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-linked-json@w3.org
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:48 AM, glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com> wrote:

> Level 1: JSON
>> Level 2: JSON-SD (Structured Data)
>> Level 3: JSON-LD (Linked Data)
>
>
>
>>
>> JSON-SD allows for IRI-less nodes.
>> JSON-SD ensures that all properties are IRIs.
>> JSON-SD ensure that all values can be strings, properties, IRIs or IRI-less
>> identifiers.
>
>
> Sorry, this now seems even more arbitrary to me. If we're arguing that we
> have to allow IRI-less nodes to accommodate non-LD JSON stuff, then I defy
> you to justify the requirement that properties be IRIs. Essentially nobody
> on earth who isn't already an RDF advocate uses IRIs as keys in key-value
> structures. They use strings.
>
> And does the third line actually mean anything? Is there anything it
> excludes?
>
> JSON already is "structured data" by its definition. I understand the idea
> of standardizing a way to represent directed, labeled graphs in JSON. I do
> not understand the point of this "JSON-SD" thing at all.
>


To me it's the difference between in-band and out-of-band schema -- you
could just as easily use a separate schema to layer IRIs on top of plain
strings. When writing code against a graph nobody *really* wants to look at
it as IRIs -- we all prefer to assign sane string identifiers to variables
in our code, why not our graphs?
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 15:49:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:53:17 UTC