Re: Review of Linked Data Notifications

On Tuesday 25. October 2016 10.25.17 you wrote:
> On 2016-10-19 06:59, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> > Dear Sarven, Amy and the rest of you,
> 
> Hi Kjetil, pardon the late reply.

No problem at all, I hope you were enjoying ISWC! :-)


> I can share some of the whys in our design choice.
> 
> Not having a preference for an RDF serialization implies that every
> actor (sender, receiver, consumer) has to be able to handle all RDF
> serializations. The simplest design is to pick one where they can all
> commit to. Implementations that speak all RDF serializations will play
> along, and new implementations will have the lowest barrier for entry.
> We picked JSON-LD only for some convenience to client-side (senders and
> consumers) implementations. Not due to any particular fascination with
> JSON-LD itself :) From the Social Web WG's point of view, JSON based
> serialization is also a requirement - although I don't know how strict
> that rule is, there may be exceptions..

Right, I can see the point. I'm just feeling itchy about JSON-LD, seems 
like YA attempt at cutting a graph into a tree. But we all have our 
issues, right? ;-) 
 
> There are exceptions to trying both e.g., the inbox of a non-RDFSource
> will only be found through HTTP Link, and naturally the inbox of a
> resource with a fragment will only be found through the body.

OK! So, it was just that it was the only part of the spec I had to read 
twice before starting to hack... So, I suppose you might want to run it 
through some others to see what they infer from it.

Cheers,

Kjetil

Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2016 13:04:12 UTC