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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:48:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4E2B1777.3070807@openlinksw.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 7/20/11 12:16 PM, Olivier Grisel wrote:
> 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.

To summarize, JSON-SD actually delivers what most already know people 
want, at this point in time i.e., a mechanism for creating structured 
data via directed graph based data representation using JSON based 
syntax. Linked Data can actually be crafted using the JSON-SD syntax, as 
is the case with syntaxes from the RDF family. That's 100% clearer than 
calling something JSON-LD just because "Linked Data" is a kinda hot buzz 
phrase, muddying the Linked Data concept waters in the process.

Structured data is important, its actually more important than Linked 
Data at this point in time re. Web evolution.



Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Saturday, 23 July 2011 18:48:51 UTC

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