- From: <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 19:01:02 +0200
- To: Halpin Harry <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Cc: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, public-socialweb@w3.org, Owen Shepherd <owen.shepherd@e43.eu>, Goix Laurent Walter <laurentwalter.goix@telecomitalia.it>
On 3 Aug 2014, at 18:53, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 08/03/2014 06:02 PM, Erik Wilde wrote: >> 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. > > Actually, according to the charter only a JSON-based syntax is a > requirement. The WG can of course have an XML syntax, but the focus on > should be on JSON. > > cheers, > harry If the group would manage to agree at the semantic level ( ie, one an RDF vocabulary for whatever ) with a default syntax ( say JSON ), then these issues would just go away. Otherwise you'll just spend two years debating syntax issues. Yesterday XML was cool. Right now JSON is. Sometime in the future something else will be.... Henry
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2014 17:01:36 UTC