Re: PROV-ISSUE-620 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

Well... this is their choice as a community group. I do not necessarily agree with this; I would not like us to say that the 'recommended' serialization format is JSON-LD for this. It should/could certainly be explicitly referred to, alongside with Turtle, but that is it. Let the practice decide. (This is a note, after all.)

Ivan


On Feb 1, 2013, at 17:31 , Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> As a note, here is how the Open Annotation spec defines their JSON-LD
> serialization:
> 
> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/publishing.html#Serialization
> 
> (note that the URL
> http://www.w3.org/ns/openannotation/core/context-20130204.json does
> not reference as this is still a community draft)
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Provenance Working Group Issue
> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>> PROV-ISSUE-620 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/620
>> 
>> Raised by: Graham Klyne
>> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
>> 
>> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0121.html, around issues 42) and/or 43), Stian has proposed specifying use of JSON-LD as a format for service descriptions.  I'll paste the specific proposal as a separate comment to this issue.
>> 
>> I note that such use of JSON-LD is not disallowed by the current specification, just not explained.  The general recommendation is that service descriptions are presented as RDF, though other formats are negotiable in keeping with REST principles.  JSON-LD would be a specific [presentation of RDF.
>> 
>> The question is: should we consider making specific mention of  JSON-LD for service descriptions?  Considerations would include:
>> - does it make the specification more complex?
>> - does it make the specification more presriptive?  Is this desirable?
>> - is JSON-LD sufficiently well-used to be considered a blessed format fort RDF data?
>> - should we wait to see what consensus the W3C LDP group may form around the general topic of linked data service descriptions?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
> School of Computer Science
> The University of Manchester
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf