W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

JSON-LD recommendations

From: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:04:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CADUi7O7eSznBoRJN5nj_M71OtZERnOfYXy3iJNXeg8RfnZqMqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Continuing my comments
> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/publishing.html
> as of January 27.
>
> Best,
>
> Antoine
>
> =======
>
>
> 1. Names in JSON serialization specification
> This has probably been discussed before I joined the group. But why are the
> names "body", "target", ..., "scope" not exactly following the labels of OA
> properties (oa:hasBody, oa:hasTarget, etc) just like all other names in the
> JSON serialization spec?
>

+10

If your proposal is not followed, there arises yet another terminology
mapping requirement in going between application languages.

What we must recognize---and perhaps it is a reason not to make such a
strong endorsement of JSON-LD by the spec---is that it is a
serialization by design convenient for JavaScript.  By contrast, most
RDF processing libraries in server-side languages can deal with
RDF/XML in or out.

My colleague on the Filtered Push project, David Lowery points out
this discussion
http://blog.ldodds.com/2010/12/02/rdf-and-json-a-clash-of-model-and-syntax/
of some of the issues.  At least some are addressed by JSON-LD, but
some are not.  So I  think that in this section, content negotiation
should be more to the point, and JSON-LD a little less.


I would like to see the recommendations rephrased something like this:


Annotations targeted at consumption by browsers can benefit by being
serialized by JSON-LD, which enables the browser application to be
conveniently developed in JavaScript with tools and methods familiar
to web developers.  In this case, the JSON-LD Context presented below
is RECOMMENDED to ensure consistency between implementations, and can
be referenced as
http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/core/context-20130204.json. For
this and other popular graph serialization formats, especially
RDF/XML, Turtle, and N3, that are served by http protocols, it is
RECOMMENDED to support content negotiation and to use the Content Type
given by the specifications of the format.


-- 
Robert A. Morris

Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
UMASS-Boston
100 Morrissey Blvd
Boston, MA 02125-3390

IT Staff
Filtered Push Project
Harvard University Herbaria
Harvard University

email: morris.bob@gmail.com
web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
web: http://wiki.filteredpush.org
http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
===
The content of this communication is made entirely on my
own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
Harvard University.
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 00:05:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 January 2013 00:05:26 GMT