W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > March 2015

Fwd: [xapi-spec] Re: JSON-LD & Web Credentials - illustrated videos by Manu Sporny

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:18:59 +0100
Message-ID: <54FEEF43.7050000@wwelves.org>
To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:44 UTC