- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 22:01:24 +0100
- To: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
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