W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > June 2010

Re: JSON-LD - experimenting with universal Linked Data markup for Web Services

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 23:25:32 -0400
Message-ID: <4C05CF2C.1060807@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Public RDFa <public-rdfa@w3.org>
On 05/31/2010 05:33 AM, Ed Summers wrote:
> - I was wondering if there was going to be a default __vocab__ prefix?
> I think it might be a bit awkward to always require it.

Hmm, there could be. I don't know what it would be... saying that there
should be a default __vocab__ prefix infers that there should be a
default context.

I go back and forth on there being a default context. On the one hand,
we could define useful things like 'xsd' and ensure that there is a
default __vocab__. On the other hand, setting the default context may be
best handled by the application that is consuming the JSON data?

If we do specify the default context, what should the __vocab__ prefix
point to? "http://purl.org/json-ld/default#"? It's a meaningless URI
space. Wouldn't it be better if the application developers override it?

Should we re-name "__vocab__" to something like "#" or "*" instead?

Should we rename the "a" (rdf:type) term to "&" or "!"?

> - It might be nice to save the bnode examples for later, once you've
> convinced people that json-ld is something they want to do :-)

Do you mean the bnode examples in the Markup Examples?

Would moving the Markup Examples to an Appendix help?

> - what is a "JSON-LD Web Service"?

A Web Service that consumes JSON-LD.

The thought is that REST-based Web Service endpoints (ones that you can
POST to, for instance) could define the default context for the web
service and document it somewhere. This could reduce the amount of data
needed to be specified in the JSON-LD markup by many orders of
magnitude. Think about services that pre-define 100 or more terms in
their default context vs. ones that have a 100 or more terms that
developers must send to the Web Service.

> - any plans to interject this work into the RDF Next Steps discussion
> [2]? Personally I would love to see a w3c endorsed json serialization
> for rdf ... but perhaps it's too soon?

It's a pretty dead simple specification. There really isn't much to
debate - I mean, we /could/ spend a couple of months debating it, but
it's been only a few days and there are already two (verified)
commercial companies that are interested in implementing this stuff...
so it's not that far off from a usable specification.

I'd like to interject this work into RDF Next Steps... but don't have a
great deal of time to be the champion for this in the W3C (it takes a
great deal of effort  (not to mention it being a largely frustrating
endeavor) to start stuff at W3C.

If anybody would like to take lead on convincing W3M to consider JSON-LD
standardization, that would be great. I'll be done writing the document
in a few months, at the latest.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.2.2 - Good Relations and Ditching Apache+PHP
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 03:26:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:46 UTC