Re: [JSON] A starting point... [fixed]

wow, sorry, typo fix this then last mail of the day for me I think! many 
corrections / translated to english ->

Manu Sporny wrote:
>> "JSON as RDF" assumes there will be uptake (a plausible belief, but a
>> belief) and is speculative.
> 
> Yes, that's correct.

I'd suggest it's a bit less than speculative, ask the average web 
developer if they'd like a way to:

a) have shared property names between different domains and silos
and
b) be able to lookup the id's of things on the web to get more
information about them (subject to auth*)

then I'd suggest the answer would be yes in many cases, and if any one 
here believes the answer is no, then I'd take that to be inferring that 
"Linked Data" isn't much use to anybody.

RDF has many properties, I don't need to say this, but, the above a and 
b are two of them, the other big one is that you can break down the rows 
and columns in a database to triples, or break down object instances to 
triples (see the RDF Bus [1]), but just because you /can/ break it down 
in to triples, doesn't mean you /have to/ break it down in to triples 
all the time, if a huge segment of the web development market is 
centered around using object based languages, JSON as a data transport, 
and would like to reap some of the benefits of RDF and Linked Data - 
with the potential to "move up in the world" and do inference, include 
DataRestrictions on properties, and a whole load of other things - then 
who are we to say "no, thou must useth full RDF or nothing!", that 
approach will get us know where fast.

(
1: no, I'm not saying that I *know* what people need, that I can predict 
the future, and that if we standardized this, then RDF adoption would 
skyrocket [2] - but I am suggesting that many more people may be able to 
reap some of the benefits we have in the RDF / Linked Data world, that 
we could bring them to a wider audience, and that "full RDF" adoption 
may creep up over time as a result.

2: is this a job for this WG? well I wouldn't mind, but if not it's 
probably something a good few of us should focus on with a *G of some 
kind, soon - and it would be a bit of a shame if we couldn't produce it 
as part of this WG, heck most of the recipe and writing is there 
already, we'd just need to subset and standardize a serialization
).

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/Talks/1211-whit-tbl/#(43) - (also the best
set of slides I've seen yet, study hard)
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0179.html
- ('tis why I'm adding that disclaimer, but not dragging up resolved things)

Best,

Nathan


>> Targeting the no-library-at-all case does not automatically come up with
>> a good solution for the library case.
> 
> The "good solution for the library case" is not automatic - but that's
> not what I was saying. I was just stating that there would be /a/
> workable solution that was automatic and that the reverse was not true.
> Having a good solution for the library case does not automatically mean
> that there would be /a/ solution for the "JSON as RDF" use case.
> 
>> It's not good for the RDF publisher - for example, the annotations are
>> designed for the typical data but an RDF publishing system has a graph,
>> no other information, and wants the export RDF in JSON.  Where does the
>> @context/@vocab come from? 
> 
> It comes from the publisher.
> 
>> It's not going to look like if it's
>> synthetically generated, and so it will not meet the expectations of the
>> group a consumers.
> 
> I don't follow. What do you mean by "It's not going to look like if..."?
> 
>> Just don't call "JSON as RDF" "application/rdf+json" because it's not.
> 
> We were calling it "application/json-ld" - :P
> 
>> Why it's not in the RDF web application WG is another question - won't
>> the get the right people involved? And align it to the RDF API?
> 
> Maybe... but if it were there, we wouldn't be having this conversation -
> which is a very good conversation to have. I'm always wary of groups
> where, when an idea is presented, there is just a bunch of agreeable
> nodding. I think we can safely say that is not happening here - and I
> see that as partly a good thing. It forces us to examine each others
> viewpoints before proceeding.
> 
> The RDF Web Apps WG was just re-chartered... I don't think the W3C team
> wants to re-charter it yet again.
> 
> Frankly, I don't care where the work gets done... as long as it gets
> done. I'd rather it happen in this group with a handful of people that
> are critical of it, than in the RDF Web Apps group with a handful of
> people that want to see the work happen.
> 
>> I hope the outcome of the F2F will be a decision on what is the target
>> and who is interested.  Jumping to a starting point is jumping that
>> decision.
> 
> The starting point was merely meant as a proposal - not attempting to
> jump any decisions. It's merely another feeler out to the group. I find
> it's easier to make decisions like this when there are a few solid
> proposals on the table. I think we have at least one proposal for the
> "JSON as RDF" work starting point now. I don't know if we have one such
> thing for the "RDF in JSON" work starting point. Would someone care to
> create one (or more) such proposals?
> 
> -- manu
>

Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 23:58:10 UTC