W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > April 2011

[JSON] Modularization and JSON-LD

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:14:33 -0400
Message-ID: <4D9BB069.5070800@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hey folks,

Nathan had asked this question on the telecon a few weeks ago and I
wanted to make sure to flag it up to the group before it was lost in the

He asked whether or not JSON-LD was designed to be a kitchen-sink
specification - that is, it seems to try to support everything - a full
RDF serialization in/on/with JSON.

I attempted to clarify by saying that the only reason it seems like it
is trying to support everything is because we wanted to have a number of
object-based solutions ready when this working group started. We thought
that we could save some time in this WG by doing due diligence on a
complete, object-based representation of RDF in/on/with JSON.

The sections in JSON-LD are modular - they were designed with the
thought that we'd be ripping pieces of JSON-LD out as we moved forward
in this group. Or, we'd be taking chunks of the specification and moving
it into the body of work that this group was doing. That is - the spec
is flexible and malleable - almost nothing is set in stone and most
everything is up for discussion.

That is, JSON-LD should be viewed as a collection of potential solutions
- not a complete kitchen-sink spec. To give an example of what I mean,
JSON-LD could go the CURIE route:


or it could go the Terms route:


It could support all of the Advanced Features and Advanced Concepts:


... or none of them. Each section was designed to be removed/added and
keep the rest of the spec intact (for the most part).

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The PaySwarm Vocabulary
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 00:14:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:51 UTC