W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

Re: New Draft comments: Publishing

From: James Smith <jgsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:37:50 -0500
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <990A4A2B-2959-4BFA-B2A0-ABC06C0799BE@gmail.com>
To: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>

On Jan 28, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:
>>>> 1. Names in JSON serialization specification
>>> This was just to be more "JSON-friendly" rather than a strict 1:1
>>> mapping into RDF.  The expectation was that developers wanting a JSON
>>> serialization which happens to be RDF would be more comfortable with
>>> these object/hash property names.
>> Yep, I had missed this one.
>> I think that here the benefits of homogeneity (for understanding the spec
>> and for maintaining it) are too big to ignore. In fact if members of the
>> group feel the properties should be JSON-friendly, then I'd rather have the
>> RDF properties JSON-friendly, too!
> :)
> To explain the the rationale behind "has[Class]", it was (not safe for
> consensus warning!) to avoid the tendency to put literals as the
> object of the predicate.  So hasBody was thought to better imply that
> there was a resource as the object, compared to body which implied
> (due to Annotea and other specs) a literal.
> And I buy the homogeneity argument.  Having to do one thing in one
> serialization and another in JSON would be a pain for those who
> implement JSON plus other RDF formats.
> So, if there are no objections, I'll change them over to be 1:1 with
> the rdf predicates.

+1 for having the JSON-LD property names mirror the RDF property names.

For JSON-LD, someone can always create their own context that associates their preferred property names with the fully qualified names if they want to use a different set of property names than are in the W3C OA community-provided JSON-LD contexts. The value of homogeneity for helping people new to the data model (imho) outweighs any non-JSON-friendliness of the property names.

My apologies if I seem to harp on some of this. I want to make sure we don't expect everyone to reference the same context document in their JSON-LD or expect unqualified properties always to be the same (though they may). It would be like expecting everyone to use the same prefix for an XML namespace.

-- Jim
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2013 14:38:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:21 UTC