W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > January 2017

Re: RDFa + JSON-LD

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 22:28:47 -0600
Message-Id: <EE38A63A-E05C-426D-BDC7-A0228D5C8657@ihmc.us>
Cc: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>, W3C RDFa Community <public-rdfa@w3.org>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Ivan

I may not be following this discussion properly, but surely it was always part of the RDF vision, from the beginning, that RDF content, ie RDF graphs, from various sources can be combined and used in reasoning. (If not, what is the point of the entire semantic web vision?) So it seems to me to be a reasonable extrapolation that if AAA and BBB are two surface syntaxes *for describing RDF graphs*, then the fact that they are different surface syntax should not be interpreted as carrying the implication that the RDF content they encode should not be combined into a single RDF graph (however that graph is encoded.) The combination RDFa+JSON-LD reads to me as just a dialect for RDF+RDF. 

No? 

Pat

> On Jan 21, 2017, at 12:09 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 21 Jan 2017, at 02:14, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com <mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Ivan,
>> 
>> Thank you. In addition to the major parsers and online test suites (e.g. http://linter.structured-data.org <http://linter.structured-data.org/> , https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool <https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool>), there are also JavaScript libraries. I noticed that one, Green Turtle, includes tests for combinations of syntaxes or “semantic hybridization” scenarios.
>> 
>> It so happens that Green Turtle’s author, R. Alexander Miłowski, is a proponent of “semantic hybridization” (http://www.xmlprague.cz/sessions2015/#semhybrid <http://www.xmlprague.cz/sessions2015/#semhybrid>). “JSON-LD and RDFa are being promoted for use on the Web to augment and annotate information. Yet, each format has its optimal use for encoding particular kinds of information.” A publication by R. Alexander Miłowski “describes a hybrid approach where JSON-LD and RDFa can be used together to provide optimal encoding while retaining connections to document locations.” The interested reader can refer to the conference proceedings (http://archive.xmlprague.cz/2015/files/xmlprague-2015-proceedings.pdf <http://archive.xmlprague.cz/2015/files/xmlprague-2015-proceedings.pdf>) for the publication.
>> 
>> Are there reasons that independent graphs make a sense in terms of design or implementation?
>> 
> 
> I do not think there was ever some sort of a "plan" to do that. RDFa, embedded JSON-LD, or embedded Turtle "just" appeared as organic growth, without any plans. There was never any group picking this up, pro or con, to make it a systematic specification of some sort.
> 
> B.t.w., to complete the picture, I would also add microdata to the mix. After all, mdata can also be seen as a (partial) serialization of RDF.
> 
>> What are the best courses of action for proponents of merging graphs or “semantic hybridization”?
> 
> With my W3C hat on: the best is to create a Community Group @W3C, having enough people showing interest, write down a full blown (short) specification crossing all the "t"-s, and convince the different implementers, tool providers, etc., to provide the necessary parsers. around such a spec. *If* there is a need to produce a W3C standard around this (which is an 'if') the CG might start lobbying (e.g., via W3C members) to produce on @W3C after this incubation period. (It would probably be a very short-lived, easy WG.)
> 
> Ivan
> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Adam
>> 
>> From: Ivan Herman <mailto:ivan@w3.org>
>> Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎January‎ ‎20‎, ‎2017 ‎10‎:‎55‎ ‎AM
>> To: Adam Sobieski <mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
>> Cc: public-rdfa@w3.org <mailto:public-rdfa@w3.org>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org <mailto:public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
>> 
>> Adam,
>> 
>> afaik, there is no such specification. Put it another way, the RDFa and the embedded JSON-LD contents (or embedded Turtle content, which is also possible) are considered as separate, and independent RDF graphs. Particular tools MAY merge them and treat them as one, but there is no specification for it as far as I know.
>> 
>> Which also means that your example below would become very much tool specific.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> On 20 Jan 2017, at 01:03, Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com <mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> RDFa Community Group,
>> RDF Working Group,
>> 
>> Does anybody know whether or where RDFa + JSON-LD scenarios are specified?
>> 
>> See: RDFa + JSON-LD Examples at https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/ <https://www.w3.org/community/argumentation/schemas/> .
>> 
>> 
>> <html>
>>   <head>
>>     <script type="application/ld+json">
>> [{"@id": "2", "http://schema.org/supports <http://schema.org/supports>": { "@id": "1" }},
>>  {"@id": "3", "http://schema.org/supports <http://schema.org/supports>": { "@id": "1" }},
>>  {"@id": "4", "http://schema.org/supports <http://schema.org/supports>": { "@id": "1" }}]
>>    </script>
>>   </head>
>>   <body vocab="http://schema.org/ <http://schema.org/>">
>>     <span about="1" typeof="Statement" property="text">Statement 1.</span>
>>     <span about="2" typeof="Statement" property="text">Statement 2.</span>
>>     <span about="3" typeof="Statement" property="text">Statement 3.</span>
>>     <span about="4" typeof="Statement" property="text">Statement 4.</span>
>>   </body>
>> </html>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Adam Sobieski
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C 
>> Digital Publishing Technical Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C 
> Digital Publishing Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
> 
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes






Received on Monday, 23 January 2017 04:29:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:57 UTC