> > 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. > If the audience for this spec is just the people who show up here, then yes. But I think we're trying to do more than that. JSON-LD seems like an opportunity to try to push LD into a form where it could take off among the vast numbers of web/data developers who don't currently give a crap about RDF. The road to that level of approachability is, I think, not a matter of simply trying to accommodate people just because they show up on this mailing list with expectations. 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. > No, it's the other way around: Needle's model is much simpler. I'm not here trying to lobby for my personal use-case, I'm here as a system-designer arguing for a simpler system-design. As it happens, Needle is a horizontal, domain-neutral graph-database. So I'm not advocating my Needle-like proposal because that's how we do it in Needle, we do it that way in Needle because that's my solution, as a designer, to the problem of modeling and serializing a graph database. And thus my conviction that it is possible to do without a bunch of this stuff, because in Needle we *do* do without it. No blank nodes, no CURIEs, no inline context, no inline datatypes, no inline literals, no chaining, no rdf:lists (no RDF). Schema is just more nodes. I have so far seen no graph that can't be represented this way, so I feel pretty confident about its expressiveness. glennReceived on Monday, 20 June 2011 01:40:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:29 UTC