Re: JSON-LD requirements

Hi Bradley,

On Jul 3, 2011, at 7:18 PM, Bradley Allen wrote:

> Glenn and Gregg- Thanks very much for engaging on this over a holiday
> weekend. This is helping me sort through my own thinking prior to the
> call tomorrow.
> 
> Since implementing the first JSON-LD specification from earlier in the
> year and being subsequently put-off by the added complexity of the
> second, I have come around to embracing Glenn's point about Linked
> Data in JSON mostly being "a matter of mapping dataset-internal
> identifiers ... to IRIs." In our work at Elsevier on bringing
> proprietary XML data schemes into linked data representations, and in
> the discussions about how to get library and cultural heritage data
> into linked data during the LOD-LAM summit last month, this was and is
> the central question. Once it is answered, mapping from arbitrary JSON
> into data structures that can be easily interpreted as triples or
> quads in an RDF model, and then (potentially) mapped into the RDF
> serialization of one's choice is simple. What we should be looking for
> is a standard way to do that.

Not sure you've kept up with the latest, Manu has attempted to create a JSON-LD Basic [1], which is pretty simple and I think would allow much arbitrary JSON to be mapped to linked data with the addition of an appropriate @context.

> I believe Kingsley's plea some weeks back for a JSON equivalent to
> N-Triples reflects this stance; I think this is also why he makes the
> comment on today's thread as to why JSON-RDF doesn't suffice, since
> that is largely what it tries to accomplish, whereas JSON-LD in its
> current incarnation attempts to go further in capturing various
> resource-centric idioms of RDF/XML.

I think JSON-LD Basic is pretty simple.

> Let me try to put that another way: JSON-LD has been about writing
> JSON with a set of conventions from RDF practice (e.g. use of CURIEs
> in properties) that make it easy to process into triples; Linked Data
> in JSON could be about adopting a set of conventions that make it easy
> to extract triples from arbitrarily written JSON. Much of what exists
> in the JSON-LD specification can be adapted to the latter (e.g.,
> @context.) I am hoping that the discussion we are having today makes
> it clearer how to phrase the goals of the Linked Data in JSON effort
> to accomplish this. It seems to me from the thread that you guys are
> close to being in violent agreement on the way to talk about these
> issues.

Note, JSON-LD Basic has no CURIEs, just terms. I think that is what makes it pretty easy to take existing JSON and map it to JSON-LD. 

> Bradley P. Allen
> http://bradleypallen.org

Gregg

[1] http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/basic/

Received on Monday, 4 July 2011 05:01:47 UTC