- From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 09:02:15 -0700
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, public-socialweb@w3.org
- CC: Owen Shepherd <owen.shepherd@e43.eu>, Goix Laurent Walter <laurentwalter.goix@telecomitalia.it>
hello james.
On 2014-07-31, 10:32 , James M Snell wrote:
> FWIW, AS2 does not *re-base* itself on JSON-LD, it aligns with
> JSON-LD. It's a critical difference.
i think this will get interesting when it comes to defining an extension
model. what was great about AS1 was that it had both an XML and a JSON
syntax, so it was useful for both communities. once you subscribe to
some layer higher than that, it gets a bit trickier to have a
well-defined domain-based extension model, without resulting in rather
horrible structures in one of the underlying syntaxes.
i tried to work on an AS2 XML encoding for a little while (analogous to
http://activitystrea.ms/specs/atom/1.0/), because it might be helpful to
also serve the XML/Atom community. but it gets rather tricky to
translate AS2's "alignment" with JSON-LD into reasonable XML constructs.
that's because as an XML user, you'd like to see XML's/Atom's extension
model to be used rather than some more complicated way of folding what's
required by JSON-LD into some generic XML mapping.
i think it wold be important to discuss whether an XML syntax is a
requirement. if it is, my guess is that this will have some implications
for how much layered models such as JSON-LD can be used, and where the
line has to be drawn to avoid dependencies on their implicit models.
cheers,
dret.
--
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 |
| UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) |
| http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2014 16:02:52 UTC