W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > July 2011

Re: JSON-LD requirements

From: Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 22:40:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKpM4Ln2qThXn8mWLr16kZN93zrTQi7FsWJ+hN9RVMcBDX1DBg@mail.gmail.com>
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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:30 UTC