Re: JSON-LD serialization and linked data support

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Ivan Herman <> wrote:

> > Here comes Paolo's proposal (at least the way I understand it): let us
> *replace* the JSON-LD serialization with a dedicated JSON serialization of
> our model. Ie, we drop the -LD *from the syntax* (but that does not mean
> dropping Linked Data) and we may replace it with -OA to yield something
> like JSON-OA.
> >
> > There is no real interoperability issue: we drop JSON-LD, and we require
> JSON-OA to be the interchange format; for Linked Data aware systems there
> is a processor that maps this the internal representation of RDF, whereas
> non-Linked Data aware systems can use that particular JSON dialect only.

I'm sorry Ivan, maybe I'm completely misunderstanding you, but I can't
reconcile "we require JSON-OA [which is not an RDF serialization] to be the
interchange format" with "Annotation systems are able to export their data
into RDF at their heart's content."

So our special syntax would be required, and all other syntaxes optional?
And you think that anyone would implement these optional, by definition
more complex, syntaxes, that are not required and not used to transfer
information between annotation clients and servers?


> > In fact, this is not so far off from what Rob proposed in [1]:
> >
> > I think it's the complete opposite, actually. You are proposing to have
> an abstract model with no practical interoperability with linked data
> systems,
> No I am not.
> > the core of which is a new JSON format,
> No I am not. The core is the model, with a specific serialization thereof.
> > that any linked data system needs to revert back to something it can
> deal with via special code.
> No I am not. Annotation systems are able to export their data into RDF at
> their heart's content.

Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305

Received on Thursday, 13 August 2015 17:22:48 UTC