Re: Was there any other reason to start some properties with @ than to make it harder to generate the JSON?!?

ne 3. 3. 2024 v 15:55 odesílatel Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> napsal:

> Despite the inappropriate tone: The property names you are complaining
> about are not defined in schema.org <http://schema.org/>, but in JSON-LD
> and this forum is not the appropriate place to discuss them.
>
> For pointers to the JSON-LD community, please see
>
>     https://json-ld.org/#developers
>
> JSON-LD is one of many syntaxes that can be used to represent data on the
> basis of the schema.org <http://schema.org/> vocabulary.
>
> A last one as for the "insanely overcomplicated and overdesigned":
>
> schema.org <http://schema.org/> is most likely the first successful
> attempt to standardize data structures and data semantics at this scale in
> human history,
>
> 1. covering such a breadth of application domains and cultural contexts
> and
> 2. being adopted by such a large, heterogeneous user base.
>
> It is easy to hint at actual or imagined limitations, but previous
> standards in the history of Computer Science were
>
> - much smaller in scope and simpler (like vCard, ISO codes, HTML, ...),
> - addressed much more objective domains (as in natural sciences), and/or
> - never gained adoption by millions of Web developers with such a broad
> range of skills (as compared to e.g. very complicated standards in some
> engineering domains).
>

To be fair there is a point regarding complexity.  Compare JSON-LD = 200+
pages

https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-syntax/

JSON SPEC = 5 pages

https://www.json.org/json-en.html

The main thing JSON really lacked was a way to denote a hyperlink, which is
the @id syntax in JSON-LD and the <URL> angle bracket syntax in Turtle.  If
JSON had a native <URL> syntax, for example, transpiled from angle
brackets, that would have made JSON into a graph structure, which would
have solved a big chunk of the problems that JSON-LD tries to solve.


>
> Best wishes
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> > On 3. Mar 2024, at 15:32, Jan Krynicky <jan.krynicky@linksoft.cz> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, if you take the time to create all the necessary classes, you can
> mark them accordingly and ask the JSON serializer to generate even property
> names starting with an ampersand.
> > For what's in most cases a one off thing that's a definite overkill. Or
> rather would be if it were possible to do that while using anonymous
> objects.
> >
> > so 2. 3. 2024 v 7:27 odesílatel Tony McCreath <
> tony@websiteadvantage.com.au> napsal:
> > C# has the ability to define the name of a property when it is
> serialised to json. Your json serialiser should have docs on it.
> >
> > Get Outlook for Android
> > From: Oscar del Olmo <oscardelolmo@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2024 4:20:55 PM
> > To: Jan Krynicky <jan.krynicky@linksoft.cz>
> > Cc: public-schemaorg@w3.org <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: Was there any other reason to start some properties with @
> than to make it harder to generate the JSON?!?   Jan, this is NOT the
> language nor tone you should be using within this group (or any other
> professional setting). You can provide formal, professional documentation
> on this C# limitation for the steering group to take into consideration,
> even make a request of the specific change you might propose, with clear
> examples of the issue you are trying to address, and receive feedback.
> >
> > I invite you to follow the basic etiquette rules you would use in any
> formal setting to address the group to avoid being excluded from this
> community, whose intention is the constructive discussion.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > O.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 8:49 PM Jan Krynicky <jan.krynicky@linksoft.cz>
> wrote:
> > The subject says it all.
> >
> > This "thing" is insanely overcomplicated and overdesigned as it is, but
> whose bright idea was it to invent the "@type" and "@content"?!?
> >
> > For crying out loud, you supposedly chose JSON so that people could
> build the structure in some other language and then serialize the object
> into JSON and include it on a page or something and then you invent this?
> >
> > HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PROPERTY NAMED @type IN C#?
> >
> > Yes, I know I can first generate the JSON with sane, doable property
> names and then search and replace to get your insane, idiotic "@type".
> >
> > Jenda
>
>
>