- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:24:05 -0500
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 02/05/2013 06:31 PM, Conal Tuohy wrote: > On 06/02/13 09:16, David I. Lehn wrote: >> A nice feature of JSON-LD is that it lets you link together data >> using multiple specialized vocabs. Perhaps it would be good to >> highlight that in our examples and specifically use various well >> documented vocabs. > +1 +1 as well. The reason I didn't move everything over to schema.org when I made the changes in the JSON-LD 1.0 spec is because of this very reason. We need to show folks that JSON-LD isn't a schema.org-only thing. The schema.org vocab terms returning 404 has been an issue for around 18 months now, so the argument that they're not being responsive to critical vocabulary publication issues also resonates with me. Putting schema.org stuff into the JSON-LD 1.0 spec is mostly a marketing move. This was done so folks understand that this stuff works with schema.org. Web developers are really excited about it because of the enhanced search results, but I still have a number of reservations about the one-vocab-to-rule-them-all approach. I share most of Dave Lehn's concerns, so I don't think we should remove other non-schema.org examples to show a good balance of vocabulary mixing with JSON-LD. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals http://manu.sporny.org/2013/payswarm-journals/
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 01:24:36 UTC