Re: Fwd: JSON Serialization?

Yep, this is issue 12:

https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/12

Rob

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Chris Birk <cmbirk@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 as well ( especially revisiting the keywords ).
>
> I agree that the end value isn’t high for most producers from my
> perspective, but including that information in the HTTP return header
> should alleviate any issues there.
>
>
>
> - Chris
> @cmbirk
> (317) 418-9384
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Hey, folks–
>>
>> I agree with everything Randall said, and I'll add this:
>>
>> The RDF convention around predicates (e.g. hasX, isY, ZedBy) is intended
>> to impart a natural-language flow when reading it, which I respect. In
>> other languages and models, though, this violates expectations, and when
>> used in real natural language, keyword (even RDF keywords) are used as
>> different parts of speech, making it very awkward to talk about these
>> attributes.
>>
>> I'd very much like to revisit these keywords, as Randall suggests, and
>> design a @context that maps them to whatever terms are needed under the
>> hood.
>>
>> Regards–
>> –Doug
>>
>> On 6/18/15 2:01 AM, Randall Leeds wrote:
>> > See below for a response that I accidentally sent only to Ivan.
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> > From: Randall Leeds <randall@bleeds.info <mailto:randall@bleeds.info>>
>> > Date: Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:04 PM
>> > Subject: Re: JSON Serialization?
>> > To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 12:04 PM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org
>> > <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 17 Jun 2015, at 10:01 , Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org
>> > <mailto:schepers@w3.org>> wrote:
>> > >
>> >
>> > > A sticking point came up around JSON-LD; I explained to them (and
>> > I hope I'm correct) that the data model is very lightweight, and
>> > that JSON-LD is not a big burden on top of JSON, because you don't
>> > need to include the context inline, so it's just a matter of using
>> > the same attribute names and structures.
>> >
>> > That is correct. If a client really wants, it has the possibility to
>> > a reference to @context in the HTTP return header. Pretty much
>> > invisible for anyone who does not need it.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Even with the relatively small additional overhead, they were
>> > skeptical there is any benefit to JSON-LD over plain JSON; with a
>> > simple, small, well-defined vocabulary, they didn't see why it
>> > shouldn't simply be stand-alone. I wasn't great at selling the
>> > notion of "reasoning", since they aren't using the Linked
>> > Data/SemWeb backend toolchains that would enable that; maybe
>> > somebody else could explain it more compellingly?
>> >
>> > My 2 cents:
>> >
>> > In my experience, reasoning as an argument does not really fly. In
>> > fact, only a few RDF systems do any kind of reasoning in the first
>> > place, and it does not scale over a certain size anyway (although
>> > those sizes are irrelevant for annotations).
>> >
>> > What JSON-LD buys us (at least in my view) is its strong connection
>> > to Linked Data. Ie, the annotation data can be combined, if
>> > necessary, with data like the ones represented by dbpedia (ie, the
>> > whole of Wikipedia:-) or, these days, with WikiData which is
>> > gradually becoming the underpinning of Wikipedia. DBpedia, though
>> > not prominent, is not the only example of course, there are tons of
>> > others. To take another example, it can use the same terms as the
>> > ones used in web sites for schema.org <http://schema.org>:
>> > schema.org <http://schema.org> is, in reality, RDF, encoded in
>> > either microdata or RDFa Lite.
>> >
>> > Ie: if the annotation data is used in strict isolation from the rest
>> > of the world, then JSON-LD does not buy anything. But if a system
>> > wants to bind this data to the outside world, it is a different
>> > ballgame. (Ie, the important bit is 'LD', not RDF)
>> >
>> >
>> > Agree with all of this. Thanks, Ivan.
>> >
>> > I still think the value proposition to producers isn't particularly
>> > strong, though. Intermediate consumers that want to link together data
>> > from disparate sources derive value, but the original producers it's
>> > less clear.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > They also didn't react especially well to some of the attribute
>> > names, like annotatedBy, annotatedAt, serializedBy, serializedAt,
>> > which didn't seem intuitive or descriptive, or to the value prefixes
>> > (like "oa:"). I couldn't really explain why some attributes start
>> > with @, and some not. (Though on further reading, maybe the @
>> > represents a JSON-LD keyword [1]?)
>> >
>> > Finding the good attribute names that would satisfy everybody needs
>> > a white table and lots of drinks (if you are in Amsterdam, you may
>> > want something else, too). Seriously: can anyone imagine any
>> > attribute name that would be agreeable to everybody? I doubt. (Sorry
>> > to be sarcastic.)
>> >
>> >
>> > I disagree. I think simple attribute names are really easy to agree on.
>> > Most people, when really challenged on it, don't want to bikeshed
>> > everything forever, in my opinion.
>> >
>> > However, I've never seen JSON in the wild that is anything like what we
>> > have in our context document.
>> >
>> > As a developer, I would never choose "hasTarget" over "target". The
>> > "has" is implied by the nesting. When working in JSON we don't see
>> > independent triples, we see framed wholes. The domain model and the
>> > framing obviates these prepositions.
>> >
>> > Often, for simple vocabularies, it's sufficient to use the type of the
>> > object range of the relationship as the key because there's only one
>> > meaningful relationship between the subject and that type of object.
>> >
>> > I've worked with JSON in dozens of domains and I never see anything
>> like
>> > what we have.
>> >
>> > Seriously: this is not a JSON-LD issue. We can choose any names we
>> > want and we can agree on, that can be mapped on the data model terms
>> > through @context at our heart's content.
>> >
>> > As for '@': afaik, they are, sort of, keywords. More exactly: '@id'
>> > is, because it assigns an identification to a resource. AFAIK, one
>> > can use any attribute to 'type' (mapped through the context), the
>> > usage of '@type' is just a convention.
>> >
>> >
>> > Most keywords can be aliased, so this is not a problem:
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#aliasing-keywords
>> >
>> > I would suggest our default context use "id" or "uri" or anything like
>> > this. When every single other key lacks a "@" (in absence of a context
>> > document, or with it sent in a header link) "@id" looks mighty strange
>> > and is not something I would expect anyone to do otherwise.
>> >
>> > I am aware of a number of JSON APIs that use a prefixing scheme, such
>> as
>> > "@" or "_", to separate metadata and data, but that doesn't apply here.
>> > It's all properties or relations of the subject. None of this is, for
>> > instance, protocal or storage "metadata" "around" the, e.g.,
>> annotation.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I wondered if maybe there might be a path forward, by just
>> > defining a simplified JSON syntax that maps directly to the JSON-LD,
>> > but without the "data-typing" and URIs?
>> > >
>> > > I know that might seem like a really bad idea, because multiple
>> > syntaxes makes interop harder. I don't have a good answer for that.
>> > >
>> > > Can someone help me frame a description or an argument why this
>> > isn't a good idea?
>> > >
>> > > On the surface of it, it does have the advantage that it would be
>> > simpler to understand (and mildly simpler to produce). Would there
>> > be any other advantages?
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > I think we should take another pass at our default context with an eye
>> > toward memorable, compact keys and a default aliasing for "@id".
>>
>>
>


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