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

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

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:01:24 +0100
To: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <015f01d05b75$5ecc1a40$1c644ec0$@gmx.net>
On 10 Mrz 2015 at 14:18, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> 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/

Don't forget the millions of websites (and e-mails) out there that already contain 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-interoperbi
> lity- 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.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 21:01:57 UTC

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