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

Re: JSON-LD bnode canonical naming algorithm

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 01:08:11 -0400
Message-ID: <4DFD843B.7040106@digitalbazaar.com>
To: "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 06/18/2011 09:42 PM, glenn mcdonald wrote:
> Let's re-ground the discussion.
> If we are to remove support for bnodes, do you expect every 
> implementation of PaySwarm to generate a unique identifier for the 
> millions, if not billions, of transfers, digital signatures and
> payee descriptions that will be generated per day?
> I'm fine with re-grounding, but this is now a totally different 
> question. What you generate ids for in your system is entirely your 
> problem.

Just to be clear - I was attempting to re-ground the discussion by
explaining a use case - not mandating that JSON-LD had to solve this
problem. However, if JSON-LD doesn't solve this problem, it will not be
a solution that we would be interested in using.

Everyone on here has use cases that are important to them. It is
important that we look at each of them. We need to discover which ones
we can address while keeping the JSON-LD spec under control.

> But you seem to be stipulating a) PaySwarm is going to use JSON-LD,
> and b) JSON-LD is responsible for supporting the constructs you would
> like to use in PaySwarm. This amounts to begging the question.

No, that was not my intent. PaySwarm was put forward as a use case that
we should consider - that is all.

> I could do the same begging, myself, by stipulating that Needle is
> going to use this as-yet-unresolved JSON-LD and demanding that
> Needle's particular inclinations be catered to in the spec, too. And
> ditto everybody else who happens to wander into this "community".

We should be gathering use cases from the community. If JSON-LD doesn't
address many of Needle's use cases, then that's not good either.

> I think the "JSON" part of "JSON-LD" is pretty clear, but the "LD"
> part is manifestly not. What is its audience? What are its goals? How
> does it relate to RDF?

The audience, at the moment, is just the people on this mailing list. In
the future, they're developers that want a flexible data format for
Linked Data and who also want to use JSON.

The goals are stated on the first paragraph on the JSON-LD web page:


How it relates to RDF is currently in the spec, has undergone many
changes over the last year, and will probably undergo many more changes
in the months to come:


> And while "It's the subset of RDF that PaySwarm liked" is /an/
> answer, surely "we" would want to come with one that's less
> arbitrarily specific. And in the spirit of trying to get us to
> simple, coherent, shared answers to these questions, I'm trying to
> propose some that aren't based on one particular system or one
> particular set of precedents.

I don't think anyone has any issues with having simple, coherent, shared
answers. Again - PaySwarm was proposed as a set of use cases to
re-ground the discussion - nothing more.

> Specifically, I'm proposing that we agree to this starting point: 
> "JSON-LD" is a set of conventions for using JSON to represent
> directed, labeled graphs.

Right. As I mentioned in an earlier e-mail, I think all of us agree on
that starting point - for some definition of "labeled".

Rather than respond to the rest of your points... I'm going to leave it
there and ask you to respond. Now that we agree on a starting point -
where do you want to go from here?

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 05:08:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:29 UTC