Re: [JSON] the simple pivotal choice

On Mar 10, 2011, at 10:11 , Thomas Steiner wrote:

> Good morning Nathan,
> 
>> Glad you replied, as I'd very much like to work out where we agree and
>> disagree.
> I think we both agree that there must be something beyond
> 
> [
>  {"s": "<http://webr3.org/nathan#>"},
>  {"p": "foaf:name"},
>  {"o": "Nathan"}
> ]
> 
> I think we both have slightly different opinions with regards to
> mappings. You seem to say
> 
> {
>  "name": "Nathan"
> }
> 
> is enough, we simply provide mappings ("RDF goggles") to whom it may
> concern that "name" actually is "foaf:name".
> 
> I seem to say that I'd rather prefer to see the prefixes somewhere in
> the serialization, such as
> 
> {
>  "foaf_name": "Nathan"
> }
> 
> conserving the beloved dot-notation (so that you can write
> obj.foaf_name rather than obj['foaf:name']). I could imagine a
> well-known prefixes directory somewhere, according to, e.g., agreed-on
> link relations in Atom.

Are these really disjoint issues?

I guess JSON-LD is the type of 

{
  "name" : "Nathan"
}

syntax. It seems (if my understanding is correct) that JSON-LD has the option of defining prefix and term mappings either in the file itself up in the hierarchy (that is the "#" key), but it also refers to a bunch of possible 'default' mapping that a processor may take into account. (I guess Manu and Mark were pretty much inspired by what is happening in RDFa 1.1). What this means is that, for example,

{
  "name" : "Nathan"
}

may stand by 'itself' in the JSON world, if the data is integrated into RDF via a JSON-LD processor, that may be turned into a 

[] foaf:name "Nathan" .

triple. The JSON-LD processor would then act as an RDF goggle à la Nathan.

I just try to be a bit more specific in our design options...

Ivan


----
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