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

1) You are right, the @ discussion belongs to a different place.

2) It's "adopted" as in "huge number of people were forced to learn the
bare minimum to provide google search with some metadata in yet another
format to get their site displayed in the search results".
Yet another of hundreds of "standards" to "learn" and forget.

By the way .... there's a billion of defined properties, yet the options
for ItemAvailability contain no value for "not available yet". But it's
cool, there are three for "not available anymore". Lovely.
And no, neither PreOrder note PreSale cuts it. Those both mean "you can
order now". One of them "... but it's going to take longer", while the
other is "... because you are special".



ne 3. 3. 2024 v 15:54 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).
>
> 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
>
>