Re: Friendly JSON serialization (Was: Annotation Serializations)

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