Re: Friendly JSON serialization (Was: Annotation Serializations)

Hi Ed,

Agreed that JSON-LD "just" means it'll parse with existing tools, and
across communities, but I agree with David that it's a big deal.  As Manu
said yesterday:

I’ve heard many people say that JSON-LD is primarily about the Semantic
Web, but I disagree, it’s not about that at all. JSON-LD was created for
Web Developers that are working with data that is important to other people
and must interoperate across the Web.


[ http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/ ]

So, did you have any examples of what is useful or not useful from a tool
perspective?  Everything in the current data model is based on use cases
and requirements, perhaps not requirements for everyone, but requirements
none-the-less.

Thanks :)

Rob



On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Edward Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:

> On Jan 22, 2014, at 11:40 AM, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
> > JSON-LD was developed to address exactly these issues.  Web developers
> get a JSON serialization that works with their existing tools and
> techniques, whereas RDF folks get the ability to map directly to the RDF
> data model.  Everyone wins.
>
> I’m not trying to denigrate JSON-LD or RDF ; but this simply isn’t good
> enough. For OpenAnnotation to happen the annotation data model needs to be
> actually useful from a tool perspective. Simply saying it’s JSON and RDF
> just means it’ll parse with existing tools.
>
> //Ed