- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:11:07 +0200
- To: <mark@coactus.com>, <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Hi Mark, > The idea was that some existing XML documents should be able to be > interpreted as RDF/XML. So this; > > <Person xmlns="something"> > <Name>Mark</Name> > <City>Ottawa</Name> > </Person> > > means the same thing as if it were wrapped in rdf:RDF. > > I had a look at the spec, and AFAICT (by looking at the spec, but also > playing in the playground), this isn't the case with JSON-LD, i.e. the > following JSON isn't also JSON-LD; > > {"name":"Mark","city":"Ottawa"} It is valid JSON-LD but not valid linked data as there's no way to map those two properties (name & city) to a IRI. You would need a context to do so. > Is there a reason why this isn't already the case? You can already link to a context from a plain-old JSON document by using an HTTP link header [1]. > I'm still quite new > to JSON-LD and don't have a feel for some of its goals, but as a new > user, this would simplify things for me. And as I mentioned to the RDF > WG, it's also a terrific tool in explaining the value of JSON-LD and > also in aiding in migration from JSON to JSON-LD. What things would it simplify for you? > I should mention that despite using JSON-LD, I'm *not* using RDF, so > I'm not at all concerned about the fact that "name" and "city" aren't > grounded. I understand that will be a concern for others, but it would > be nice if I weren't required to care about it ;-) This sentence confuses me a bit. What's the value of JSON-LD compare to plain old JSON if the properties are not mapped to an IRI (that's how I understand the "grounded" in this sentence)? [1] http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/index.html#referencing-context s-from-json-documents -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 22:11:44 UTC