Fwd: Re: PROV-ISSUE-622 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]

[Resending with updated issue number in subject for tracker.]


-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: PROV-ISSUE-619 (json-ld-service-description): Should PRIV-AQ bless 
use of JSON-LD for service description? [Accessing and Querying Provenance]
Resent-Date:  Fri, 1 Feb 2013 17:06:27 +0000
Resent-From:  <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Date:  Fri, 1 Feb 2013 16:57:23 +0000
From:  Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To:  Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC:  Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>



I agree that JSON-LD is just "another RDF format" and of course you
can make any context you wish.

However the advantage of providing a pre-made @context is that users
who don't know anything about RDF or don't have the luxury of RDF
libraries can follow your JSON template and still be playing along and
use the relevant bits of PROV-AQ.


There were requests for JSON support in PROV-AQ from others (who?) -
but in particular I guess for web browsers, browser extensions and
smartphone/tablet apps. Given that we have PROV formats which don't
require RDF, like PROV-N and PROV-XML, it seems perhaps odd you would
need RDF in order to find the provenance services for finding those.


However - on second thought, given that we don't have an official
PROV-JSON (which MIGHT work as JSON-LD of PROV-O), I think perhaps we
should downplay this at the moment. If we include it, it should just
be a tiny paragraph with an example and hyperlink to the context.


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester

Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 17:55:56 UTC