Re: Social API: Scope

the assumption here being that tomorrow, RDF might be cool. maybe it will be, and we'll see tomorrow, i guess. to quote tim bray, what matters is the bits on the wire. it's kind of hard to get around this simple truth. cheets, dret.

> On Aug 3, 2014, at 10:01, "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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 17:15:02 UTC