Re: Introducing CBOR-LD...

On 7/24/20 4:33 PM, Nader Helmy wrote:
> Is the former spec simply an evolution of the latter? What’s the delta
> between these approaches?

In the final days of the JSON-LD 1.1 WG an attempt was made to put a
NOTE together for a "CBOR encoding for JSON-LD", which is slightly
different from what CBOR-LD is attempting to do (compression is a big
focus of CBOR-LD, not just encoding JSON-LD into CBOR).

The group had been (rightly) prioritizing getting JSON-LD 1.1 and
associated algorithms shipped. The JSON-LD 1.1 WG, with a huge thanks to
Gregg Kellogg, did yeoman's work getting us to an updated version of
JSON-LD 1.1. The official JSON-LD 1.1 Recommendation was finalized just
a week ago:

https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/

So, the difference is that the document worked on by the WG was a way to
encode JSON-LD in CBOR, whereas the thing that was just announced on
this mailing list was a way of compressing JSON-LD into a new format
called CBOR-LD that would enable a reduction in file size AND possibly
an increase in compute speed (neither of those were goals of the format
considered by the JSON-LD WG, IIRC).

I hope that CBOR-LD (the most recent announcement) will be what we focus
on as the months roll on... but I say that not having discussed any of
this with the JSON-LD WG... we'll have to see what Ivan, Gregg, and our
friends over there think about this new approach. Additionally, we need
to chat with Pierre-Antoine, who I believe did a lot of the work on
JSON-LD-CBOR to see if he feels there are key design criteria that we
missed when we put CBOR-LD together.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches

Received on Friday, 24 July 2020 21:46:27 UTC