Re: Clarify objections to JSON [was Re: Getting the group back on track]

A huge +1 to this from here too.

Everyone doesn't have to agree on something being the best and everyone 
doesn't even have to work on the same things, but if we can't set a 
single vocab using a single format as a **reference**, then there is no 
standard.

As Harry said, JSON is out there and it *is* really used everywhere, and 
should be chosen if real adoption is wanted.

AS2 is very ... large, but imho that is not all bad. It could be trimmed 
down, but then again it should have the necessary structures to compose 
messages with. The bad thing is the larger it is, the less implementers 
will be able to implement all of it. I can say for example for the needs 
of the current features in diaspora*, only a small subset can be used - 
the rest of it would just have to be ignored or parsed in to more basic 
structures (like I think Note would be the basic "status message", which 
could be a catch-all when something isn't supported).

But it is important that even though it would not be a MUST or a SHOULD, 
it would be a REFERENCE and CHOSEN format and vocab. And there should be 
only one. Anyone can do what they want, but the spec should give a clear 
reference to implement without having to guess.

Br,
Jason

On 20.10.2015 00:54, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
> Harry Halpin writes:
>
>
>> Why can't we get agreement on JSON?
>>
>>   Again, without a common transport protocol (HTTP) and a common
>> messaging format (JSON), we will just be developing decentralized silos,
>> i.e. IndieWeb sites not talking to RDF-using sites not talking to
>> ActivityPump/Media Goblin. Sigh.
>>
>> To add in a dose of realism, JSON is what modern programming languages
>> (Go, Ruby, etc.) use by default and 99% of developers. The JSON-using
>> development community is *orders of magnitude* larger than both the
>> RDF/Linked Data community and the microformat community. I think both
>> RDF and microformats have done tremendous activity in this space and
>> should be recognized and real work should be made to guarantee interop
>> with microformats and RDF. However, the burden of development 'shims'
>> (relatively easy in both cases due to mf2 and JSON-LD) should be on
>> those communities, who should recognize that while they are innovative,
>> a common interop language will end up being JSON. "Shims" that MAY
>> consume RDF and Microformats probably should be specified by the API,
>> i.e. what to do when your API encounters non-JSON, but the default
>> assumption should be JSON.
>>
>> In my personal opinion, ActivityStreams2 simply should help be the JSON
>> 'successor' syntax to RSS and Atom. The problem with AS1 and even
>> *moreso* with AS2 is lack of implementers and interest. However, it
>> seems we have a number of open source projects and a small amount of
>> vendors willing to commit to it. On the other hand, it probably needs
>> more implementation feedback before going to CR (i.e. a 'Last Call'
>> phase). In general, making it more minimal is probably a good thing.
>> Indeed, if one made something simpler than AS2 and it was JSON-based, it
>> would be within charter.
>>
>> Second, it's in the charter that I wrote, i.e. "A transfer syntax for
>> social data such as activities (such as status updates) should include
>> at least the ability to describe the data using URIs in an extensible
>> manner, time-stamping, and should include a serialization compatible
>> with Javascript (JSON) and possibly JSON-LD. Formats based on XML or
>> other data serializations are out-of-scope. "
>>
>> If you don't agree with the charter, the wonderful thing about standards
>> bodies is there's so many to choose from: One can always go somewhere
>> else. Or we can simply ask W3C to write a new charter, in which case we
>> should do so sooner rather than later if there *really* isn't any
>> support for JSON. I'd suggest that folks who want to block progress on
>> going forward with JSON sit back and think why they are in the Working
>> Group: Remember that simply adding 'W3C' to a spec does not necessarily
>> increase adoption. Examples such as SOAP abound. The *core* problem with
>> AS2 is that it did not have much developer interest *before* launching
>> the Working Group (ideally, we should see lots of implementation before
>> standardizing), and the theory was that the WG would help increase
>> developer implementations. This finally appears to be happening.
>>
>> There's larger problems than AS2 we have to face, i.e. an API (likely
>> simple is good) and federation (hard), so I suspect we should stop
>> bike-shedding on this one. I'd like to invite all folks who objected to
>> AS2 to explain how they will gain interop without a common messaging
>> format (or why their format clearly has more take-up than JSON). If a
>> sufficient case isn't made, we should continue forward with JSON or end
>> the Working Group via closing/re-chartering. So let's stop bike-shedding
>> and get to the hard work!
>>
>>            cheers,
>>                 harry
> +1k to all this
>

-- 
-----
Br,
Jason Robinson
https://jasonrobinson.me

Received on Thursday, 22 October 2015 19:41:44 UTC