W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2011

Re: JSON Emergency Brake

From: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:02:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CALgRrLk+BOx9LkKs4qB7L_r+e_hc=2OuWKLEEGWwgSa8tdtjHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Alexandre Passant <alex@seevl.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi again,

> As I said, using the Link HTTP header brings no advantage over embedding the link in the representation. The processing of rel="@context" is specific to JSON-LD anyways, so why not include the link in the JSON-LD payload.

Just to clarify, I was not suggesting to remove the other options of
inlining the @context, adding the @context link directly in the
payload. I was suggesting the Link header as an additional means to
add @context.

All arguments against Link headers fully qualify, and yes, I am aware
that not everyone has the power on their Web servers to set those. I
can see one huge advantage, though: it can in my opinion improve
adoption of JSON-LD, as the actual payload on many "legacy" JSON
providers does not have to change at all, they could simply
transparently add the Link header with their @context.

I'm not fighting over this, simply thought it might be a nice addition
to the spec. If people think it's stupid, fair enough ;-) Maybe we can
quickly discuss it on the JSON-LD call/list. I'll start a short
thread.

Best,
Tom

-- 
Thomas Steiner, Research Scientist, Google Inc.
http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 11:03:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT