- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:18:59 +0100
- To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <54FEEF43.7050000@wwelves.org>
some questions from xAPI developers about JSON-LD, for now I'll just bring to their attention its TR status http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/ please note in the end of the email "If we can get this worked out and agreed, it may be that the recommendations mentioned above could be made in 1.0.3." -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: JSON-LD & Web Credentials - illustrated videos by Manu Sporny Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 04:57:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew Downes <andrew.downes@scorm.com> To: xapi-spec@adlnet.gov CC: xapi-design@adlnet.gov, xapi-profile-cop@adlnet.gov Thanks for these links! From skimming through the first two videos, my understanding is that JSON-LD is a specification designed for non-standard APIs that return JSON so that the structure of these JSON objects can be described to software consuming that data. It seems to be trying to solve the same problem that we already solve by having a specified common API. One area of Tin Can were we do not have a specified structure is extensions and it seems to me that we're already (accidentally?) using JSON-LD for extensions as extensions are always mapped to IRIs. The other area is documents where I personally always recommend using IRI for keys <http://tincanapi.com/2015/03/09/deep-dive-interoperability-document-apis?utm_source=tincanapi_com&utm_medium=google-group&utm_term=andrew&utm_content=blog&utm_campaign=deep-dive-interoperbility-document-apis?pmc=em-1>, but it's not required by the spec. Some follow up questions: - Is there any benefit to adopting JSON-LD for the standardised parts of the spec? Am I missing anything here? - Should we recommend that adopters use JSON-LD for extensions (where the extension contains an object)? - Should we also recommend JSON-LD for JSON documents in the Document APIs? - If we do make recommendations to use JSON-LD for extensions and/or documents, is the JSON-LD spec mature/complete enough that we can just say "use JSON-LD" or do we need to give details as to how adopters should implement JSON-LD? - Are the JSON-LD key words ubiquitous and stable enough that we should use these, or should we use IRIs for everything? My initial view is that we *should* use the JSON-LD key words as it seems that JSON-LD has a lot of noise at least (if not actual adoption), though I'm disappointed that the authors of JSON-LD didn't use IRIs for these. If we can get this worked out and agreed, it may be that the recommendations mentioned above could be made in 1.0.3. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xapi-spec+unsubscribe@adlnet.gov.
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 13:19:18 UTC