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: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:36:17 +0100
Message-ID: <4E2E98A1.9000409@openlinksw.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 7/26/11 3:48 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 07/21/2011 09:48 AM, glenn mcdonald 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.
> I think we're mis-communicating. What I mean is that the JSON key, 
> which is a string, is expanded out to an IRI using the @context.
>> And does the third line actually mean anything? Is there anything it
>> excludes?
> It excludes graph literals, for the time being. I haven't put much 
> thought into what else it might exclude. Here are the things that I 
> would expect to be expressible in the JSON-SD syntax:
> strings (aka: plain literals), strings with associated language 
> information, typed literals, integers (xsd:integer), doubles 
> (xsd:double), IRIs, bnode identifiers, embedded sub-graphs, and arrays 
> of values (sets of all of the previously mentioned items).
>> 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.
> The point of JSON-SD is to draw a line between what Kingsley and you 
> are calling Linked Data, and the "thing" that some of the rest of us 
> need in order to make our systems work. The argument that I've been 
> hearing from both you and Kingsley is that we're mis-using the "Linked 
> Data" name to describe what we're attempting to do.
> So, we're dropping it in favor of something that doesn't use the 
> "Linked Data" name, but still supports Linked Data and useful bits of 
> non-Linked Data mixed with Linked Data. We're calling this combination 
> of non-Linked Data and Linked Data - "Structured Data".


> -- manu



Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 10:36:57 UTC

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