Re: [JSON] user segments, version 2

On Apr 8, 2011, at 20:10 , Sandro Hawke wrote:

<snip/>

> 
> Yes, my use of the word "simple" was meant to convey that Group D
> doesn't want to use a library.
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> Now, with this simpler view, we can see where the real complication is:
>>> we'd like to address several of these groups at once.  Ideally, we'd
>>> like a single JSON format that works for everyone.  If it worked for
>>> Group A, it would keep the current users happy (and twitter, facebook,
>>> etc wouldn't mind adopting it). If it also worked for Group B (call
>>> this an "AB" solution), it follows that it would also work for C and D
>>> and everyone would be happy.  But I don't think there are any AB
>>> solution.
>>> 
>>> It's somewhat easier to imagine "AC" and "AD" solutions.  I think
>>> mostly the debates are which of B, AC, and AD we can or should do.
>>> Maybe ACD is possible, too.     I *think* Manu is pushing for an AC
>>> solution
>> 
>> I believe JSON-LD's goal (ie, Manu's:-) would be more something like ACD (not sure it reaches it, though). Ie, a format that, at least in simple data, *can* be used by users in group D.
> 
> Can prefixes really be handled without a library?   I don't think so.  
> 

No they can't. But the point is: in some cases you do not care. If you have something like

{
  "@context" : { "name" : "foaf-uri-for-name", ... }
  "name" : "Sandro"
}

*some* applications may want a full, RDF-like interpretation of the data (i.e., they need a library to manage the context), but some applications do not really care about that because they operate on very specific pages anyway, in which case they are perfectly happy with something like

f = json.parse(data);
f.name ...

(or something like that). So a 'C' user is a 'D' user wearing RDF goggles, like Nathan called them... Put it another way, a specific user may start in the 'D' category then he/she realizes that there is more to achieve if an additional library is used, and can migrate into 'C', using the very same data.

Ivan

>>> and Andy and Steve are pushing back, since their current users
>>> are mostly in Group B.
>> 
>> I think you are right.
>> 
>> Others have said it before: I think we have, potentially, two JSON+RDF things here, and that is what we may have to do. 
> 
> Agreed - an AC solution and a B (and D) solution.

For me, and ACD and a B solution:-)

Ivan


> 
>   -- Sandro
> 
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>>> 
>>> FWIW JRON aimed for AB, but I don't think it quite hits the mark.  In
>>> particular, its JSON is perhaps too cluttered to be a real Group-A
>>> solution (although for normal JSON data it's pretty clean), and for
>>> some things (like namespaces) the consumer code need too much code to
>>> work for Group B.
>>> 
>>>   -- Sandro
>>> 
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON_User_Segments
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


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