W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > October 2013

RE: JSON Schema (json-schema.org) support?

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 20:28:52 +0200
To: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <017001cec12f$945bc930$bd135b90$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Friday, October 04, 2013 5:36 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
> On 10/04/2013 12:32 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 03, 2013 11:27 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
> >> So how would you propose provide the client with instructions what data
> >> to send?
> >
> > Hydra (since we are having discussions on both lists at the moment) :-P
> I knew you would say that but I posted this question on the JSON-LD
> list for a reason.


> The question was meant to be independent from an API scenario.

Isn't it an API if a client has to send data?


> Let me ask one more question to verify whether I understood you:
> The expects parameter is a pointer to a concept (i. e. RDF class)
> and if I'm a client I should know what makes up an instance of this
> concept; which properties it has and which validation rules apply?

Exactly - apart the validation rules. IMO that's not something the client
necessarily has to know. Hydra gives you something at hand to tell your
client at runtime what properties it is ready to accept for the various
concepts it accepts.


> > I want to build systems in which I have to define very little myself. I
> > want, e.g., reuse as much as possible from schema.org so that I don't
> > to write the necessary documentation etc. Schema.org however won't cover
> > everything I need. Thus, I define a few properties/classes myself (or
> > them from another vocab) to fill those gaps.
> Sure, this is to me one of the major "selling point" of the whole
> semantic Web.
> I totally agree with you that it does not make sense to
> expect the whole Web is using a canonical form to represent data --
> JSON-LD is poly-morph --
> but for the "writable Web" (opposite of read-only) you will need type
> introspection
> and validation at the end of the day to allow for even more generic
> clients.
> This brings me to the API scenario discussed above:
> During writing my last response I also thought about something like
> hydra:expects
> and I think I will give it a try.

I would be very interested to see what you come up with... especially if it
is some running code.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 18:29:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:39 UTC