Re: Friendly JSON serialization (Was: Annotation Serializations)

Doug,

My experience is the same.  In IIIF [1], we specifically did NOT use the OA
context mapping and went with something less RDFy and more in line with the
domain.   We went even further than your suggestion, with "hasTarget" being
just "on".  This is one great advantage of JSON-LD, that the serialization
can be very different from the (abstract) data model while still enabling
semantic interoperability.

I could easily imagine something like:

{
  "@type" : "Annotation",
  "reason" : "commenting",
  "body" : "http://example.net/body",
  "about" : "http://example.org/target"
}

as being more palatable than the current RDF centric context.  Again, I
think this is something that we can derive some criteria for, redesign,
solicit feedback and iterate on.

Rob

1 --
http://www.shared-canvas.org/datamodel/iiif/metadata-api.html#Annotation



On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi, Rob–
>
> I couldn't agree more with Randall and Blaine. I was struck by how clumsy
> the predicate-like syntax felt to me; doubtless this is just an aesthetic
> from my background in JS, HTML, CSS, SVG, etc., but I think it's how most
> web developers would react as well.
>
> If there's a way to have terms that map from JSON-friendly syntax to
> RDF-friendly syntax, that would be really great (e.g., "hasBody" and "body"
> are quivalent; similarly for "hasTarget" -> "target", "annotatedBy" ->
> "annotator", "annotatedAt" -> "timstamp", and so on).
>
> Regards-
> -Doug
>
>
> On 1/20/14 1:07 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
>>
>> Second item from the discussion seems to be the availability of a web
>> developer friendly JSON serialization.
>>
>> Some background -- we have been asked for JSON serializations for at
>> least 3 years. Here is one such request of many, from 2011:
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/oac-discuss/CSq9Jsdd3zk where we
>> kicked the can down the road waiting for JSON-LD to come along.
>>
>> Which it has, and is the recommended serialization for Open Annotation.
>>
>> So the question is not the JSON serialization's existence, but its
>> developer friendliness, and whether we can do any better while remaining
>> conformant with the JSON-LD specification.
>>
>> I think that would be a great discussion to have, or rather to restart,
>> as it was brought up in point 2 of this thread:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/
>> 2013Apr/0015.html
>>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>