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

List reply fail, again(so used to google groups where the reply-to header is
set correctly)...


On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>wrote:

> On 07/21/2011 11:48 AM, Dean Landolt wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> I think that's what we're doing, Dean - assigning sane strings IDs to the
> JSON-SD markup and relying on the context to expand those values out into
> full IRIs (if necessary) and compact them back down.
>
> Go here:
>
> http://json-ld.org/playground/
>
> Click "Person" and then click between "Compacted" and "Expanded" form.
>
> Are you proposing something different? If so, what are you proposing?



Note the @context in the compacted form. This is what I meant by an in-band
schema. I was specifically responding to Glenn:


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.
>


I was under the impression that the difference between JSON-SD and JSON-LD
is that JSON-SD + out-of-band schema could very well create JSON-LD. I may
be misinterpreting the intent of JSON-SD though :)