W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > April 2012

Re: JSON as JSON-LD

From: <mark@coactus.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:29:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CALcoZirkGzK095BBDC-ox58QwWepcA7B7AHj2euQ+3t1tQc1Og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
Hi Markus,

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Markus Lanthaler
<markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>> {"name":"Mark","city":"Ottawa"}
>
> It is valid JSON-LD but not valid linked data as there's no way to map those
> two properties (name & city) to a IRI. You would need a context to do so.

Understood about the context, but I don't understand the distinction
you make there.

It's certainly not a serialized RDF graph; is that what you mean by
"not valid linked data"?

But what does it mean that it's valid JSON-LD? I tried it in the
playground, and it yielded the same result as an empty dictionary.

>> I'm still quite new
>> to JSON-LD and don't have a feel for some of its goals, but as a new
>> user, this would simplify things for me. And as I mentioned to the RDF
>> WG, it's also a terrific tool in explaining the value of JSON-LD and
>> also in aiding in migration from JSON to JSON-LD.
>
> What things would it simplify for you?

It's easier to step into it slowly; existing code can be updated as
you discover the need to disambiguate, rather than being required up
front.

I think that the linked data community sometimes forgets that the
world has managed to get a whole lot accomplished before we started
grounding terms in URI space 8-)

>> I should mention that despite using JSON-LD, I'm *not* using RDF, so
>> I'm not at all concerned about the fact that "name" and "city" aren't
>> grounded. I understand that will be a concern for others, but it would
>> be nice if I weren't required to care about it ;-)
>
> This sentence confuses me a bit. What's the value of JSON-LD compare to
> plain old JSON if the properties are not mapped to an IRI (that's how I
> understand the "grounded" in this sentence)?

>From my POV, the value is that it's possible, not that it's required.

Mark.
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2012 19:29:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:36 GMT