Re: Defining a common convention for marking up JSON

Another option would be to build OData on top of JSON-LD and use RDF-style namespacing.

JSON-LD is very generic, while OData is just a "schema" which can be mapped into RDF and then encoded using _any_ of RDF serialisation formats.
Am I wrong?


On 26.09.2013, at 3:22, Michael Pizzo <mikep@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Yes, I'll grant that my hopes of making this extensible for custom keywords requires either a registry mechanism or a way to associate with a namespace.
>  
> Or both -- the two are actually not mutually exclusive. We can reserve a few "common" prefixes (like "jsonld" and "odata") and allow others to be associated with namespaces through a general mechanism.
>  
> OData actually already has the ability to associate a namespace with a prefix, but it doesn't (yet) prepend the "@" symbol to differentiate the "keywords" from other properties that might contain a period. It would be great if JSON-LD had a way to do the same thing, but for now I'm happy with just prefixing the JSON-LD keywords with a well-known prefix. J
> 
> As far as convincing the rest of the JSON developers, if OData and JSON-LD can agree on a convention, then I think that will help drive others to adopt the same convention. And even if it doesn't become a ubiquitous convention, at least we have better compatibility/interoperability between OData and JSON-LD.




-- 
Alexey Zakhlestin
CTO at Grids.by/you
https://github.com/indeyets
PGP key: http://indeyets.ru/alexey.zakhlestin.pgp.asc