Re: JSON-LD Syntax request for FPWD via RDF WG

Markus,

On 24 May 2012, at 10:47, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> Honestly, I didn't expect that such an editorial issue will cause so much
> discussion. The content is there, the round-tripping is to and from RDF is
> fully specified (and tested). We didn't want to submit the API spec yet as
> there are still some minor issues with it and we also wanted to make sure to
> have a number of interoperable implementations of the spec before publishing
> it.

Let me summarize what happened: Manu's initial request was about only the JSON-LD syntax spec. It didn't mention the JSON-LD API spec. The key parts of the JSON-LD syntax spec that mention RDF don't link to the JSON-LD API spec. It took questions from WG members until the existence of the JSON-LD API spec was pointed out. Being asked about the plans for the API spec, Manu stated that it's up in the air, and that it would likely not be submitted to RDF-WG. So basically his initial request was that RDF-WG push a non-RDF format through the W3C process, while leaving the mapping to and from RDF as future work. That just didn't make much sense, and is not a mere editorial issue. But I believe we've identified several possible ways forward that resolve this issue.

> That being said, would it help if we would extract the to/from RDF stuff
> from the API spec, rewrite according the RDF Concepts and publish that as a
> separate document? I'm saying as a separate document because we targeted
> JSON-LD to web developers without any RDF background.

I guess there are three options:

1. Have the to/from-RDF algorithms in the syntax spec and take only the syntax spec to REC
2. Have them in a stand-alone document and take that document plus the syntax spec to REC
3. Leave them in the API spec and take API and syntax to REC

Manu has requested RDF-WG to proceed with 3.

Personally I'm a bit uncomfortable with 3 because the API spec is *big* and contains lots of stuff that doesn't seem to be immediately relevant to RDF-WG, and that seems to be well outside of what RDF-WG is chartered to do. (Our charter doesn't mention APIs, for example.) This may just be a case of me being uncomfortable because I don't understand JSON-LD and all its surrounding algorithms and APIs well enough.

>> Which raises another point: would it be possible (certainly would be
>> great!) to have a JSON-LD Primer as a WG Note, eventually?
> 
> Yes, we planned to write one..

Great!

Richard

Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 14:48:25 UTC