Re: GRDDLing JSON?

Yes, what Dan said about json-ld context. Ever since the birth of json 
they've been struggling to make it do (poorly) what xml does well, and I 
wouldn't want to put an oar in that water--but if you do, search for 
"json transformation language".

For setting up a processing pipeline declaratively (and standardly) you 
can't beat XProc[2].

Thanks for bringing up GRDDL, and for your contributions. It should have 
been used more.

Regards,
--Paul

[1] https://www.ottr.xyz/
[2]

On 2/9/24 12:42, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> You can do quite a lot of mapping vanilla json into json-ld using 
> json-ld contexts. Unlike xml there are only so many ways to say stuff 
> and the content tends towards being objects and properties anyhow.
>
> If you’re going to have a turing complete mapping framework you 
> probably should just use JS.
>
> Cheers
>
> Dan
>
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 at 17:58, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     I'm rather out of the loop, so apologies if something like this
>     has already been discussed, implemented even. But I feel
>     obliged to flag an issue, offer a potential solution (which might
>     already exist).
>
>     # Use case :
>     For the past few days I've been working on a bit of code where a
>     processing pipeline will be set up declaratively. I'm still on
>     baby steps, but it's a place where RDF should be ideal. A little
>     graph defines the nodes & arcs of the processing system.
>
>     To get the code started, I only need a trivial model to work from.
>     A simple list, (input reader)->(process)-> (output writer).
>     So at this stage, it seemed reasonable just to use a minimal JSON
>     list. Generalise to RDF later.
>     There's a sequence of nodes, each with an instance ID and a type
>     for the nature of the thing.
>     A very simple JSON structure covers it.
>
>     # Issue :
>     But looking ahead, I wondered how to migrate from the arbitrary
>     JSON to an RDF model. Obviously, JSON-LD.
>     In my head I saw a namespace declaration, the rest just lifted &
>     placed there from the keys in the JSON mappings. But in practice,
>     it's not quite like that, it gets ugly fast.
>     I guess it's basically a syntax issue.
>     What you see in the (arbitrary) JSON expression is
>     visually/intuitively understandable. Ditto in Turtle. But in
>     JSON-LD, any kind, the immediacy of interpretation by a human
>     (this one at least)  is lost.
>
>     # Proposed Solution :
>     I don't know if anyone remembers GRDDL [1]. An elegant approach
>     for bridging between anyXML and RDF. One added attribute in the
>     doc, to say it has an RDF representation and here's how to get it.
>     It's an easy inclusion in namespaced XML, we* went for XSLT
>     transformers, a very immediate approach. Imagine an org with loads
>     of XML documents of the same shape. A transformation has to be
>     written once, that pointer inserted in all these docs, very
>     low-effort mapping to the RDF world.
>     As far as I'm aware, to date, absolutely no-one has ever used this.
>
>     *But* the idea is great. Forget XML, let's do JSON.
>     Add one (presumably top-level) name value pair in a JSON doc:
>
>     { "http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view#",
>     "http://example.org/this-to-that"
>     ...
>     }
>
>     At http://example.org/this-to-that you have the definition of how
>     to take this arbitrary JSON and make it a citizen of the Web.
>
>     I'll say again, you might well just want to bin this if such
>     things have been dealt with already.
>     But it did strike me that in practice, I was facing horrible stuff
>     to look at. Please remember RDF/XML's role in adoption.
>     Cheers,
>     Danny.
>
>     [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/
>
>     * yeah, I was on the GRDDL Working Group. Memory totally gone over
>     my contributions, but in these things I generally only offer
>     /wrong/ arguments (realise years later), which post-factum I
>     convince myself are useful to get the people with their heads
>     screwed on to look at things more closely.
>     I'm still a little irritated I didn't get a credit in the doc, I
>     poked Dan Connolly and he said he's sort it, Didn't. It did mean
>     something to me, one of the very few things I've been involved
>     with which had a very pleasing end product (even if absolutely
>     no-one uses it).
>     I should also confess I was mouthy in the JSON-LD group at the
>     start, but quietly shuffled away when I realised the other folks
>     had magnitudes better grasp.
>
>     -- 
>     ----
>
>     https://hyperdata.it <http://hyperdata.it/danja>
>