- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 21:40:19 -0400
- To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 08/24/2011 05:21 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: > Prefixing is a good choice when there are likely to be lots of terms > from multiple namespaces, but I think that's likely to be the > exception than the rule in applications using JSON. We're not really > talking general-purpose interchange here, more like Web 2.0 API-style > data provisioning. In this context, by far the most common scenarios I > reckon will just use a bunch of terms from a single namespace and/or a > small total number of terms - both adequately (and more simply) > available without prefixes. Danny, this begs the question, doesn't it? That is, if I assume what you say above, I come to the same conclusion that you have - we don't need CURIEs. However, the raw data shows us that there is quite a bit of vocabulary mixing that is already happening out there - in TURTLE, in RDFa, etc. It is true that these are early days and that practice might change based on precedents like schema.org. As for this: > [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/namespaces-considered-harmful Not everyone in the Microformats community (myself included) agrees with that position for all languages: http://microformats.org/wiki/accepted-limitations-of-microformats#Microformat_Namespacing_Issue Have you had a look at Section 4.1 in the latest (as of 15 minutes ago) JSON-LD spec? What do you think of the first 3 paragraphs? -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Building a Better World with Web Payments http://manu.sporny.org/2011/better-world/
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 01:40:48 UTC