- From: Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 22:40:41 -0700
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Cc: glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
No, I saw it when it came out. I share some of the objections others have voiced about creating multiple flavors. I'm also not convinced it goes far enough in addressing the simplicity issue as one is still juggling @context, type coercion, etc. - BPA Bradley P. Allen http://bradleypallen.org On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote: > 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 05:41:09 UTC