Re: JSON Serialization?

Hey, folks–

I started a wiki page [1] with some suggestions, starting with Rob's, 
then adding a few of my own. I'm not married to any of this, so feel 
free to edit the page (motivation:editing).

If you have a suggestion for a term that already has an entry in the 
'proposals' column, please add yours to the 'alternates' column, and any 
rationales in the 'notes' column. We can take that as a starting point 
for a conversation, and the WG's choice will be moved into the 
'proposals' column.

For example, under Provenance, Rob has suggested we replace 
"oa:annotatedAt" with "date", while I suggest "timestamp" or "datetime"; 
I provide the rationale that "'datetime' is the name of the 
corresponding attribute in the HTML5 'time' element".


[1] https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/JSON_Vocabulary

Regards–
–Doug

On 6/22/15 3:56 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
> Given our current context:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#json-ld-context
>
> I would suggest as a start:
>
> annotatedBy --> user
> serializedBy --> generator  // CF ATOM terminology:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-4.2.4
> annotatedAt --> date
> serializedAt --> ???
>
> It's already better than the CG's context, as we dropped the direct
> translation already for FPWD.
>
> Rob
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com
> <mailto:w3c@fjhirsch.com>> wrote:
>  >
>  > Is there someone who could make a concrete proposal for revising the
> JSON-LD keywords, specifically listing all the changes? We could then
> use that as the basis for a brief discussion/agreement.
>  >
>  > Seems there is already rough agreement on the list as well as a
> rationale for making the change (Thanks Randall for articulating this)
>  >
>  > regards, Frederick
>  >
>  > Frederick Hirsch
>  > Co-Chair, W3C Web Annotation WG
>  >
>  > www.fjhirsch.com <http://www.fjhirsch.com>
>  > @fjhirsch
>  >
>  > > On Jun 18, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com
> <mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > 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
> <mailto: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 <tel:%28317%29%20418-9384>
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org
> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
>  > > > <mailto:ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>>> wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > > On 17 Jun 2015, at 10:01 , Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org
> <mailto:schepers@w3.org>
>  > > > <mailto: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>
> <http://schema.org>:
>  > > > schema.org <http://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
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305

Received on Monday, 22 June 2015 20:41:13 UTC