W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > April 2018

Re: json-ld implementations (.NET)

From: David I. Lehn <dil@lehn.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 19:24:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CADcbRRMtgTbcHKBdCb_EmFDLvV=rjBeemeKbyGx+UoUjCfGYAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Gibson <tinycode2@gmail.com>
Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 6:00 AM, Andrew Gibson <tinycode2@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> https://json-ld.org only lists one library for ..NET - "json-ld.net", which
> is maintained by Nuget (Microsoft's package manager organisation):
> https://www.nuget.org/packages/json-ld.net/
> ...
> Given the above, json-ld.net appears to be the only realistic option for
> using JSON-LD within .NET at the moment. However, there are some problems
> with this library, including:
> Currently tests don't pass (simple discrepancy between http and https)

Looks like the code is rather old.  It's also going to need updates to
support the flags that were added to indicate 1.0 or 1.1 tests.  And
based on the age I'm guessing may need to have various updates to
support newer tests that have been added.

> The library doesn't target the most recent versions of the .NET runtime
> There are annoying discrepancies between the implementation of the
> compaction algorithm in this library and the one provided in the javascript
> implementation (https://github.com/digitalbazaar/jsonld.js) although the
> spec could probably be interpreted either way.

What discrepancies are you referring to?  Which spec text has multiple
interpretations?  If you find issues like that *please* file issues
since we want the specs to be clear and tests to cover all use cases
such that all implementations (old and new) behave the same.

> ...
> I would be happy to contribute time to keep things maintained, but I don't
> work for Microsoft so I'm not sure where to turn at this stage. Is it better
> to fork the library and give up on their implementation? Should the current
> library be listed as "fully conforming to the offical JSON-LD
> specifications" if the test suite doesn't currently pass?

It's using the Apache license so I'd start with a fork and coordinate
interested people to make updates.  If enough progress is made perhaps
they'll accept a mega PR or just point to your new repo.

At some point the main site should be updated to better indicate
conformance.  It even might be better to take off text about
conformance and just let libraries self report.  I added some text to
jsonld.js and pyld about conformance although they are already
out-of-date with the latest spec and test suite changes:


The site also links to implementation report page which is surely also
out-of-date.  At some point we should update that and show 1.0 and 1.1
test results.

Received on Monday, 9 April 2018 23:25:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:51 UTC