- From: Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 09:08:49 -0500
- To: Evan Prodromou <evan@e14n.com>
- Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org
Evan Prodromou writes: > On 2015-10-12 10:28 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: >> I dont think taking yet another JSON serialization to REC is a good >> idea, when we already have a JSON REC (JSON LD) which is to all >> intents and purposes identical. I am wondering if there will be some >> formal objection down the line. > > Have you reviewed AS 2.0? It's explicitly compatible with JSON-LD, as a > design goal. It's more or less a vocabulary on top of JSON-LD. Not only is it built on top of json-ld, if you go to http://json-ld.org/playground/ you'll see there's even an [Activity] button on there. Hit the n-quads tab, you'll see that we can even convert to RDF. ActivityStreams is based on JSON-LD and is directly convertable to RDF... I think the AS direction and the linked data direction currently have a smooth integration path.
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 14:12:48 UTC