Re: JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2011-07-04

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:48 AM, glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com> wrote:

> Level 1: JSON
>> Level 2: JSON-SD (Structured Data)
>> Level 3: JSON-LD (Linked Data)
>
>
>
>>
>> JSON-SD allows for IRI-less nodes.
>> JSON-SD ensures that all properties are IRIs.
>> JSON-SD ensure that all values can be strings, properties, IRIs or IRI-less
>> identifiers.
>
>
> Sorry, this now seems even more arbitrary to me. If we're arguing that we
> have to allow IRI-less nodes to accommodate non-LD JSON stuff, then I defy
> you to justify the requirement that properties be IRIs. Essentially nobody
> on earth who isn't already an RDF advocate uses IRIs as keys in key-value
> structures. They use strings.
>
> And does the third line actually mean anything? Is there anything it
> excludes?
>
> JSON already is "structured data" by its definition. I understand the idea
> of standardizing a way to represent directed, labeled graphs in JSON. I do
> not understand the point of this "JSON-SD" thing at all.
>


To me it's the difference between in-band and out-of-band schema -- you
could just as easily use a separate schema to layer IRIs on top of plain
strings. When writing code against a graph nobody *really* wants to look at
it as IRIs -- we all prefer to assign sane string identifiers to variables
in our code, why not our graphs?