- From: Olivier Grisel <olivier.grisel@ensta.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:16:44 +0200
- To: "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Hi all, First email to this list. I would just like to emphasize that adoption seems more important to me that whether this format is real Linked Data. Adoption should be the number one priority focus for this working group. So I am fine if this format is called JSON-SD to preserve the purity of the Linked Data brand and concept. Web and Mobile application developers need a practical way to exchange *lightweight* JSON payloads that is both readable and provides enough namespaces and dereferenceable IRIs for resource that matter both for interoperability across applications and discoverability in general. This spec should not enforce them to put boilerplate IRIs on "structured literal attributes" such as playlist items or digital signatures or partially available information (e.g. person name or email without complete knowledge of any linked data profile). Enforcing the requirement of having an IRI on every single node of the JSON payload would have a huge negative impact on adoption by: - rendering the JSON payload less human readable (this is very very important for adoption) - making it overly complicated for the developers to instrument existing JSON feed generators and web service APIs to make them output valid JSON-(LD|SD|whatever the final name of this spec) - increasing the size of the payload without any concrete need for that additional data (very important for mobile application developers) Also the Framing mechanism presented by Many sounds like a practical solution to handle blank nodes when they are scoped by a IRI identified resource that is part of the JSON payload. -- Olivier http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel
Received on Saturday, 23 July 2011 15:01:47 UTC