Re: RDF 1.1 Primer

On 04/12/13 18:55, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 04, 2013 7:37 PM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>> I think it would be much more inviting if you would use example 11 as
>>> first example in section C.2 JSON-LD, then show the context and mention
>>> that it can also be embedded directly in the document and that prefixes
>>> can be used the same way as in Turtle and use the multiple-graphs
>>> example to illustrate it. I've cleaned up the examples and the context
>>> and attached all of them in a single file.
>>
>> I thouht the same at first, but then I realized that the first example
>> might be easier to understand *when compared to the others*. As I see it,
>> the first example is using JSON-LD as "yet another" concrete syntax for
>> RDF, and uses a straightforward way to encode a given graph. The second
>> example assumes that the JSON was already existing in some API, and was
>> RDF-ized with a JSON-LD context.
>
> Hmmm... fair enough. In any case I think we need to decide who we are trying
> to address with this example.
>
> I guess most Semantic Web experts won't read the primer anyway and if they
> do, they will be "patient" enough to wait for the second example. On the
> other hand, for newcomers a representation similar to what they are familiar
> with from JSON APIs may be much more appealing. At least they will
> immediately see that it is possible to serialize RDF in such a way. I fear
> that if we don't do this early on we will lose a lot of people.
>
> I would even go as far as suggesting we show that directly in section 5.
> Would anyone object to this?

I don't think it is a good idea.  It's a primer and the space is at a 
premium.  It's hard but we don't really get a chance to make too many 
points.



>>>> One quick question - any
>>>> reason for mapping uri to @id instead of just reusing @id?
>>>
>>> As Pierre-Antoine already said it has advantages when working with the
>>> data but I nevertheless think we probably should stick to @id and @type
>>> in the primer as these are really advanced features.
>>
>> As explained above, the idea was to make it look as if it came from any
>> API, not necessarily RDF- or JSONLD-aware But I won't fight over it if
>> there is a consensus to switch back to @id
>
> Fully agree with this but I think we should also keep in mind how most
> examples look in the wild. Schema.org, Actions in GMail, json-ld.org, the
> JSON-LD spec to just name a few all use @id and @type. If we alias them in
> the primer, people will probably get confused when comparing it to the other
> documents. I consider keyword-aliasing a really advanced feature.

If you think it's advanced, then, yes, not primer material.

Please choose one graph example - having several examples is IMO 
confusing to a primer reader, making JSON-LD look complicated and scary. 
  I think the point to make here is that JSON-LD exists and lead the 
reader to go look at it.  Or produce a "RDF 1.1 Primer (JSON-LD edition)".

Maybe have two JSON-LD sections one for single graph and one for 
multiple graphs.

	Andy

>
>
>> (you would probably want to switch to @type as well, then?)
>
> Yes
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>

Received on Saturday, 7 December 2013 18:00:33 UTC