- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:13:18 -0500
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi, Rob– I couldn't agree more with Randall and Blaine. I was struck by how clumsy the predicate-like syntax felt to me; doubtless this is just an aesthetic from my background in JS, HTML, CSS, SVG, etc., but I think it's how most web developers would react as well. If there's a way to have terms that map from JSON-friendly syntax to RDF-friendly syntax, that would be really great (e.g., "hasBody" and "body" are quivalent; similarly for "hasTarget" -> "target", "annotatedBy" -> "annotator", "annotatedAt" -> "timstamp", and so on). Regards- -Doug On 1/20/14 1:07 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > Second item from the discussion seems to be the availability of a web > developer friendly JSON serialization. > > Some background -- we have been asked for JSON serializations for at > least 3 years. Here is one such request of many, from 2011: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/oac-discuss/CSq9Jsdd3zk where we > kicked the can down the road waiting for JSON-LD to come along. > > Which it has, and is the recommended serialization for Open Annotation. > > So the question is not the JSON serialization's existence, but its > developer friendliness, and whether we can do any better while remaining > conformant with the JSON-LD specification. > > I think that would be a great discussion to have, or rather to restart, > as it was brought up in point 2 of this thread: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2013Apr/0015.html > > > Rob
Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 20:13:35 UTC