Re: Friendly JSON serialization (Was: Annotation Serializations)

Hi, Karen, folks–

I'll admit, I didn't have those folks in mind, but that's a real-world 
case: the casual maintainers. I know plenty of smart non-programmer 
folks at non-tech organizations who are tasked with just these sorts of 
issues. And it would be nice if understanding this all were easier for them.

But even a step up from that, full-time web developers, will struggle 
with obscure constructs or terms.

Rob's new vocabulary and mapping is great; it's pretty much just what I 
was asking for. (I won't quibble now about the few terms I'd change.)

I don't know enough about the RDF community to know if standardizing 
around these new terms for all contexts would be tolerable; I'm 
sympathetic to Waleed's viewpoint, and think 2 different sets of terms 
is asking for trouble, but since I'm not going to be the one consuming 
the RDF, I don't feel qualified to judge.

Regards-
-Doug

On 1/22/14 3:06 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I hope I'm not over-interpreting Ed's, Ivan's and Doug's points, but
> _I'd_ summarize the point as this: that for a standard to be widely
> adopted, it needs to be as easy to learn and implement as HTML and/or a
> WordPress or Drupal module. In fact, the latter two would be excellent
> tools if such is possible.
>
> I work with a number of small organizations, mostly archives, that not
> only do not have a programmer on staff, but do not have an "actual" web
> master. Instead, once a web site is set up (usually by a consultant) it
> is then maintained as needed by someone on staff who has learned just
> enough to keep things running. Yet these organizations have unique
> collections that could be of great value if linked.
>
> kc
>
> On 1/22/14, 10:30 AM, Edward Summers wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Nope, I was just writing to agree that (more?) library support for
>> working with OA annotations is an important idea. Just saying that
>> some data is in JSON doesn’t mean it’s useful for a particular task.
>> It just means you can call JSON.parse on it (yay) instead of having to
>> install some esoteric RDF toolkit to work with it (boo).
>>
>> //Ed
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2014 06:51:45 UTC