Re: Fwd: JSON Emergency Brake

On 8/24/11 3:51 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> Whether RDF/JSON continues or not, if JSON-LD is to be attractive to a
> broad range of non-RDF-oriented developers, it should be a reasonably
> simple syntax. As it stands I believe the inclusion of CURIES is an
> unnecessary complication.

+1

> The use of simple name/IRI mapping in
> @context should be enough. Yes, it will get verbose if a large number
> of terms is needed in a single document, but I doubt very much that
> would be the norm among the target audience.

Yep! Too many years have been lost on the overrated verbosity matter. 
People can live with that, believe it or not. Verbosity has never killed 
N-Triples as a powerful vehicle for both surfacing triples and 
demystifying the power of EAV/SPO based directed graphs. To date, that's 
been my easiest path to coherence when I encounter skeptics or newbies.

>   (An @vocab mechanism is
> also mentioned in the spec, though I'm not sure if that's current or
> orphaned artifacts of a previous draft). Whatever, having a raft of
> different syntactical ways of saying the same thing looks very like a
> repeat of RDF/XML.

+1

>   Also I wouldn't be surprised to see antagonism from
> some in the HTML community simply because CURIES resemble XML
> namespaces.

+1

Let CURIES go, as per earlier comment. Hackable URLs are very important.
> (I mentioned this to Manu in G+, can't find the thread - he defended
> CURIES in JSON-LD because his own application needed vast amounts of
> markup without them)

Manu's application != JSON-LD :-)
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
> --
> http://dannyayers.com


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen