Re: Philosophy, was framing

On 8/1/13 2:36 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Hi Markus,
> Sorry about the HTML... must have been from cut/pasting out of the spec.
> As the framing issue is solved, thanks!, I changed the subject.
> I have to disagree philosophically with you here.  I think that the 
> JSON-ness (is "jsonic" a word?) of JSON-LD is a huge strength. Perhaps 
> the fundamental strength of JSON-LD over any other RDF serialization. 
> As Manu implies in his blog post on nuclear rdf, the fact that RDF/XML 
> is unable to be usefully processed by XML tools or understood by 
> people familiar with XML is a massive failing that has negatively 
> impacted the adoption of RDF in general for many years.


> And to quote the post:
>   "RDF is plumbing... and developers don't need to know about it to 
> use JSON-LD"
> If you want to understand why your tools are adding this stupid 
> "@graph" and "@id": "_:b1" crud all over your nice JSON, the answer 
> is... RDF.  But not even just RDF, it's a choice in the algorithms to 
> include them as there's nothing in the spec that says they have to be 
> there when not necessary.  That a JSON developer can look at an RDF 
> serialization and instantly understand what is going on, without 
> knowing the underlying model, is /the/ saving grace for the semantic 
> web, IMO.  It is all about being easy /and/ semantic.
> So I would implore you to please reconsider the "anti-pattern" stance.
> Rob


The doctrine is "deceptively simple" its what makes the Web work, 
actually. JSON-LD *potentially* (subject to the shape and form of its 
final description narrative) provides a "deceptively simple" pathway 
into the world of RDF based Linked Data for typical Web Developers.


>     > Yes, understood.  So if we want to specify the serialization of an
>     > Annotation in JSON-LD, we therefore should include @graph in the
>     > expected shape of the output JSON, right?
>     >
>     > Thus our basic annotation becomes:
>     >
>     > {
>     >    "@context": "",
>     >    "@graph": [{
>     >      "@type": "oa:Annotation",
>     >      "hasBody": "",
>     >      "hasTarget": ""
>     >    }]
>     > }
>     No, I don't think you should do that. Why would you? A consumer
>     can't and
>     shouldn't rely on a specific shape anyway.
>     >>> The issue that I (at least) have with this is that the JSON-LD
>     docs
>     >>> bury @graph in a "Named Graph" section rather than being up
>     front and
>     >>> saying that you need to worry about it all the time, even if
>     you don't
>     >>> have a named graph.
>     >>
>     >> I don't see this as a problem. You are reading a JSON-LD
>     document so you
>     >> have to expect every keyword unless you have some out-of-band
>     contract
>     with
>     >> the publisher which allows you to rely on a specific structure.
>     >
>     > My concern here is the different (and thus likely not interoperable)
>     > implementations that developers with different back-end stacks will
>     > come to.
>     > A JSON based developer will end up with an object without @graph,
>     > because in the documentation it's described more as an edge case for
>     > named graphs. As he doesn't have a named graph, he should feel
>     pretty
>     > confident in leaving it out from the serialization, and not
>     processing
>     > it in a client.
>     >
>     > Then a developer with an RDF stack, on the other hand, will
>     always get
>     > a blank node named @graph out from her tools. She also doesn't
>     think she
>     > has a named graph, but will code her clients to expect it.  Now
>     these
>     > two implementations won't work together, and I think it's hard
>     given the
>     > current documentation, to explain why the JSON developer needs
>     to always
>     > look for @graph.
>     That has nothing to do with the publisher (backend) but solely
>     with the
>     consumer. If you need to support JSON-only consumers, i.e.,
>     clients that
>     rely on the structure and the property names to process the
>     document, you
>     need to specify it. A goal of JSON-LD is to eliminate that
>     coupling which
>     all too often results in very brittle systems. So the question you
>     should
>     ask yourself is: "Do we need to support clients that process
>     OpenAnnotation
>     documents as JSON"?
>     If the answer is no, you don't have to do anything. JSON-LD
>     capable clients
>     will transform the document to a form suitable for them. They
>     might frame
>     it. Or they might flatten it. You don't know - and don't have to.
>     On the other hand, if you need to support JSON-only clients as
>     well, you
>     need to specify in all details how documents are structured. Then
>     you would
>     define a profile and use JSON-LD's profile media type parameter to
>     signal
>     that the documents conforms to that structure. Similarly, a client can
>     request a document in that form in conneg.
>     I see that as an anti-pattern and just useful for legacy systems.
>     So I would
>     recommend you to not go down that route. That would be similar to
>     prescribing how the Turtle serialization should look like.



Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 18:51:40 UTC