Re: Social API: Scope

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 08/03/2014 07:57 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net wrote:
> 
> On 3 Aug 2014, at 19:14, Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Teenagers make their decisions based on coolness. As you get older
> you try to make them based on experience, and where possible try to
> use foundations that are secure. In this case maths, logic and web
> architecture.

Note that the charter quite clearly says we are to focus on JSON as
*syntax* - i.e. "A JSON-based syntax".  If somehow people have
real-world software and actual deployments that require XML or some
other non-JSON compatible RDF, go for it but this is very much
secondary and should not tackled until we get the JSON serialization
agreed upon, at least in this Working Group. If you want to start
working on that now, a Community Group can be made at any time.

Furthermore, the WG should also use URIs - "should include at least
the ability to describe the data using URIs in an extensible manner".

 The charter is clear: JSON and URIs. This isn't up for debate.

Now rather than rat-holing, please provide competing JSON-based syntax
alternatives to ActivityStreams. That *would* be useful.






> 
> The idea is simple: You specify the meaning of the words, then you
> allow the data to be expressed in whatever syntax is more
> convenient.  Because it is useful to have a default, you take the
> fashion of the moment - currently JSON-LD - as the serialisation on
> the wire to agree on.
> 
> For those with legacy software one can the write a JSON to JSON-LD
> mapper to make integration easier.
> 
> Then if between the time you start this process and the time it
> ends you find another serialisation more fashionable ( say as
> happend with Atom between Tim Bray - father of XML - pushing it,
> and a few years later when JSON started becoming cool ), then you 
> don't have to change all the existing software.
> 
> That also makes a lot of economic sense, which it is true is what
> managers tend to think as being cool. So I can't completely escape
> being cool. (sigh!)
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=NAga
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Sunday, 3 August 2014 18:47:24 UTC