Re: Split JSON-LD spec

On 09/01/2011 11:32 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I thought a bit more about the recent discussions here on the mailing list
> and came to the conclusion that it might be better to split the JSON-LD spec
> into two parts:
>
>   1. JSON-LD (the language)
>   2. JSON-LD Processing (APIs, algorithms, etc.)
>
> I think doing so would reflect the fact that different people are interested
> in different aspects of JSON-LD. Of course, everyone has to understand
> JSON-LD the language, thus we should really put a strong emphasis on a
> simple, short, and easy to understand spec for that.
>
> On the other hand there are some other aspects which I think are also
> important to standardize (think normalization, framing, etc.) but which are
> much more complex and only a few people actually have to read and understand
> how all this works.
>
> In my opinion, splitting the spec would definitely be beneficial for the
> adoption of JSON-LD. It also allows us to get more insights (and time) for
> the tricky parts if we release the JSON-LD language spec first. Designing
> good APIs for something that hasn't existed and hasn't been used before is
> not a trivial task.

+1

> Please note that I'm strictly against about having a basic and an advanced
> spec. Think of it more as "separation of concerns".

+1

I think this is a good idea as long as it is a "separation of concerns" 
as Markus suggests. Moving the details of how to implement the API calls 
into another document would clean things up and help us focus on both 
concerns.

I will also add that I wouldn't be against Ivan's suggestion that a 
processor that only implements RDF conversion (vs. the other JSON-LD API 
calls) be considered conformant. I think the "Implementor's Spec" should 
allow for processors to implement either the four JSON-LD API calls, RDF 
conversion, or both.

-- 
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
http://digitalbazaar.com

Received on Thursday, 1 September 2011 15:48:55 UTC