Re: schema.org post about JSON-LD

On 06/04/2013 08:59 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 4 June 2013 17:45, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>> On 6/4/13 6:17 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>> FYI...  at schema.org we've posted a short note, basically to say that
>>> we like JSON-LD and expect it will prove very useful with schema.org
>>> structured data. Oh, and thanks for all your work on it!
>>>
>>> See http://blog.schema.org/2013/06/schemaorg-and-json-ld.html
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>> Dan,
>>
>> As per my comment on your post, what about support Fro Turtle too? It's
>> embeddable using <script/>, just like JSON-LD.
>>
>> Goal: to offer people a broad range of choices, in line with "horses for
>> courses" essence of the Web.
> I can only speak for my own (somewhat constrained) time but personally
> I would rather put some renewed effort into improving the picture
> around RDFa w.r.t. schema.org (and w.r.t. Google), before jumping into
> yet another format.  This is nothing against Turtle, and I'm sure it
> has its place!

+1

I love Turtle, but for schema.org's purposes (getting ordinary websites 
to expose triples), I think it's best to settle on exactly two syntaxes 
(RDFa and JSON-LD) for examples and instruction.   And, of course, 
mention somewhere in the small print that microdata, microformats, 
turtle, and maybe even RDF/XML work just fine, too.

I say two syntaxes, instead of just one, for the reason I heard Google's 
Jason Douglas (head of the Knowlege Graph program) explain nicely today: 
sometimes your data lines up with your text, in which case you use RDFa; 
sometimes it doesn't, in which case you use JSON-LD.

With a "@context": "http://schema.org" included, people can write their 
RDF by writing perfectly normal-looking JSON.   Turtle's nice, but for 
web developers, I'd bet normal-looking JSON is quite a bit nicer.    
This is an incredibly painless way to publish data to the world.

     -- Sandro
> Dan
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 04:43:43 UTC