Re: [xapi-spec] Re: JSON-LD & Web Credentials - illustrated videos by Manu Sporny

On 03/10/2015 10:01 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On 10 Mrz 2015 at 14:18, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>> some questions from xAPI developers about JSON-LD, for now I'll just
>> bring to their attention its TR status http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/
> 
> Don't forget the millions of websites (and e-mails) out there that already contain JSON-LD :-)
Good point Markus :)

Luckily I did happened to mention it in my quick reply!
https://groups.google.com/a/adlnet.gov/d/msg/xapi-spec/8Zddb-cMPjc/csmGAWExnE0J

Also looks like those videos helped Andrew develop better understanding
of Linked Data and JSON-LD \o/
https://groups.google.com/a/adlnet.gov/d/msg/xapi-spec/PEAUQaPHCHI/s3XGB1YV9FsJ

I will have call today with xAPI developers (mostly @adlnet.gov folks)
3PM UTC to discuss JSON-LD and ActivityStreams 2.0. If someone would
like to join I can send you an invite! (G+ Hangout).
https://github.com/adlnet/xAPI-Spec/blob/master/xAPI.md

Cheers



> 
> 
>> please note in the end of the email
>> "If we can get this worked out and agreed, it may be that the
>> recommendations mentioned above could be made in 1.0.3."
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: Re: JSON-LD & Web Credentials - illustrated videos by Manu Sporny
>> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 04:57:24 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Andrew Downes <andrew.downes@scorm.com>
>> To: xapi-spec@adlnet.gov
>> CC: xapi-design@adlnet.gov, xapi-profile-cop@adlnet.gov
>>
>> Thanks for these links!
>>
>> From skimming through the first two videos, my understanding is that
>> JSON-LD is a specification designed for non-standard APIs that return
>> JSON so that the structure of these JSON objects can be described to
>> software consuming that data. It seems to be trying to solve the same
>> problem that we already solve by having a specified common API. One area
>> of Tin Can were we do not have a specified structure is extensions and
>> it seems to me that we're already (accidentally?) using JSON-LD for
>> extensions as extensions are always mapped to IRIs. The other area is
>> documents where I personally always recommend using IRI for keys
>> <http://tincanapi.com/2015/03/09/deep-dive-interoperability-document-
>> apis?utm_source=tincanapi_com&utm_medium=google-
>> group&utm_term=andrew&utm_content=blog&utm_campaign=deep-dive-interoperbi
>> lity- document-apis?pmc=em-1>,
>>
>> but it's not required by the spec.
>>
>> Some follow up questions:
>>
>>    - Is there any benefit to adopting JSON-LD for the standardised parts
>>    of the spec? Am I missing anything here? - Should we recommend that
>>    adopters use JSON-LD for extensions (where the extension contains an
>>    object)? - Should we also recommend JSON-LD for JSON documents in the
>>    Document APIs? - If we do make recommendations to use JSON-LD for
>>    extensions and/or documents, is the JSON-LD spec mature/complete
>>    enough that we can just say "use JSON-LD" or do we need to give
>>    details as to how adopters should implement JSON-LD? - Are the
>>    JSON-LD key words ubiquitous and stable enough that we should use
>>    these, or should we use IRIs for everything? My initial view is that
>>    we *should* use the JSON-LD key words as it seems that JSON-LD has a
>>    lot of noise at least (if not actual adoption), though I'm
>>    disappointed that the authors of JSON-LD didn't use IRIs for these.
>> If we can get this worked out and agreed, it may be that the
>> recommendations mentioned above could be made in 1.0.3.
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to xapi-spec+unsubscribe@adlnet.gov.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
> 
> 
>