Re: RDF and non-RDF world views

+1 for that summary! Thanks for sharing, Rob.

Another strength of JSON-LD is that @context objects can be provided
"out of bad" or in addition to "raw" JSON. That @context object can be
provided by the publisher or the consumer.

It's a key function that most other data formats lack, and one I think
we'd benefit from taking more advantage of in the future.

Thanks again for sharing that, Rob,
Benjamin
--
Developer Advocate
http://hypothes.is/

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From the social WG, I think that James hits the nail on the head with his
> description about *allowing* RDF processing while not *requiring* viewing
> the world through RDF-tinted glasses.
>
> There are clearly still challenges, such as whether punning properties
> actually do allow RDF processing or not, but I think the point of view is
> one that we should also try to adopt if possible.
>
> Rob
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:54 AM
> Subject: Re: ActivityStreams Schema: Hierarchy of Types
>
> Requiring an RDF world view would be a mistake. Use of JSON-LD does
> not require us to take that view. It does, however, enable those who
> want to take that view to do so. A minimal vocabulary based around the
> most common use cases, defined within the
> www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams namespace makes sense to enable a
> minimal level of interop. If someone wants to bridge those definitions
> into other vocabularies/systems, there's nothing stopping them from
> doing so. That said, in order to define that minimal vocabulary, we
> need a minimal set of basic use cases from which to build around. The
> work that Erik has been doing looking at the AS1 base schema is a
> great start.
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:10 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2014 12:51 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>>> hello elf.
>>>
>>> On 2014-11-13, 00:24, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>>>> I would say that we can base it on RDF data model so *those who chose
>>>> to* can take full advantage of it. Still if someone *chooses to* ignore
>>>> @context, then this implementation will treat the data as plain old
>>>> JSON, which uses unmapped strings. Constructs like "@type": ["Person",
>>>> "foaf:Person"] and similar don't force anyone to treat them as RDF.
>>>
>>> this is a very slippery slope and at the very least we should be open
>>> and honest about how steep we are making that. for example, just in your
>>> short snippet, "foaf:Person" already makes assumptions about the prefix
>>> "foaf:" (what's the processing model to find out what that's supposed to
>>> mean?), and thus you cannot simply treat that as a string.
> [...]
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 17:55:21 UTC