Re: PROV-ISSUE-619 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

Looking at the Stian's original comments here

[[[
42) "this specification does not preclude the use of non-RDF formats"
JSON-LD <
http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/
> is growing in
popularity, should we perhaps propose a JSON-LD context? I think it
would be quite straight forward, and actually managed to do it in
about 15 minutes (including learning the syntax).

If you try the JSON from 
https://gist.github.com/4565822
 on

http://json-ld.org/playground/


( Obviously the "@context" here should be extracted and provided by us. )
]]]

First of all JSON-LD is an RDF serialization format, ie, I do not see how this comment is relevant to the remark in the document saying "this specification does not preclude the use of non-RDF formats". Also, JSON-LD's @context is just a syntactic trick. It is equivalent (though more complex) than the list of @prefix statements in a Turtle file. I do not think this document should define a @context, just as it does not define @prefix statements for Turtle or the most compact way of expressing the response in RDF/XML.

In my opinion the document is fine as is in this respect.

Thanks

Ivan






On Jan 31, 2013, at 18:23 , Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> PROV-ISSUE-619 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/619
> 
> Raised by: Graham Klyne
> On product: Accessing and Querying Provenance
> 
> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-prov-wg/2013Jan/0121.html, around issues 42) and/or 43), Stian has proposed specifying use of JSON-LD as a format for service descriptions.  I'll paste the specific proposal as a separate comment to this issue.
> 
> I note that such use of JSON-LD is not disallowed by the current specification, just not explained.  The general recommendation is that service descriptions are presented as RDF, though other formats are negotiable in keeping with REST principles.  JSON-LD would be a specific [presentation of RDF.
> 
> The question is: should we consider making specific mention of  JSON-LD for service descriptions?  Considerations would include:
> - does it make the specification more complex?
> - does it make the specification more presriptive?  Is this desirable?
> - is JSON-LD sufficiently well-used to be considered a blessed format fort RDF data?
> - should we wait to see what consensus the W3C LDP group may form around the general topic of linked data service descriptions?
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf