W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-opengov@w3.org > June 2015

Re: [Poplus] Popolo and JSON-LD

From: Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 21:54:55 +0200
Message-ID: <556E0A0F.9050505@ping.de>
To: poplus <poplus@googlegroups.com>, public-opengov@w3.org
James McKinney wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:42 AM, Paul Mackay <pauljmackay@gmail.com 
>> Isnt it possible to have both? A JSON-LD object could have "id"
>> and "@id" if necessary.
> 
> Sure, but the *_id properties are not aliased to any property in
> RDF.

Such *_id properties can be mapped to RDF by extending the JSON-LD
context.

>>> Allowing the use of internal identifiers without having to
>>> produce
>> a URL for those identifiers has been a clear use case, hence the
>> *_id fields.
>> 
>> Could you please expand a bit on these use cases specifically?
> 
> It’s as simple as most developers do not want to be concerned with 
> authoring URLs for everything, and very few object-relational
> mappers (ORMs) facilitate this, so it would be additional work for
> those developers.

I only agree with this in part. I do not doubt that in many cases some
additional effort might be required. But the main issue is that many
developers simply do not understand why it would make sense to invest
that effort.

If developers have the choice to either render pure JSON or JSON-LD
without understanding the benefits of JSON-LD they understandably will
decide against JSON-LD.

Explaining and demonstrating those benefits is key.

There probably will be a chance to move the balance in Europe a bit in
favor of JSON-LD soon, but I can not yet make any announcement.

Cheers,
Andreas
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2015 19:55:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 2 June 2015 19:55:35 UTC