Re: extension model of RSS/Atom (ISSUE-16 discussion)

On 04/13/2015 05:58 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello elf.
Hello Erik,

> On 2015-04-12 13:47, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>> While spec defines how to expand just few common prefixes, it also uses
>> in example *gr:Location* not included in this list.
> i am not arguing that the spec does not map what's in the spec. i am
> pointing out that per the current spec mapping cannot be done in all
> cases because no context is required for extensions, and JSON-LD is not
> a required processing model.
To my understanding
* NOT required:
* required:
where Handling of JSON-LD Compact IRIs requires information from the

* required:
similar with Natural Language Values
"The default language for document or an individual object can be
established using the JSON-LD @language keyword within a @context

Last but not least, I see JSON-LD @context providing standardized way to
address *describe data using URIs* requirement from WG charter:
"A transfer syntax for social data such as activities (such as status
updates) should include at least the ability to describe the data using
URIs in an extensible manner, time-stamping, and should include a
serialization compatible with Javascript (JSON) and possibly JSON-LD."

Would you suggest some other, preferably standarized, ways than JSON-LD
@context for using URIs in JSON? Especially for object *keys*
(property/predicate) and not only values (object) (of course value of
"@id" denotes triples subject, EAV/SPO).
Since charter states "possibly compatible with JSON-LD" I think we
should provide strong technical reasoning, which clearly explains what
makes it not possible to stay compatible with JSON-LD!

>>> since for now we're still saying we're "JSON-based" and should also
>>> demonstrate what this means when you're *not* operating in RDF-land, we
>>> have to be clear what it means when people are not as careful as you,
>>> and what it means for these two different user groups (JSON users and
>>> RDF users) to interact via AS2.
>> Once again, IMO to make it possible we really need to come up with smart
>> strategy for using JSON-LD contexts
> mostly, i am talking about that we need to come up with a robust way to
> define what extensions have to look like, and what consumers are
> supposed to report to applications when they encounter one that is not
> based on JSON-LD.
What kind of JSON data and not 'based on' JSON-LD we need to support?
* no JSON-LD @context at all
** publisher can't use Compact IRIs (PROPOSAL: just use full IRIs?
similar to
** publisher can't set default @language (TODO propose solutions)
* uses terms not mapped to URIs in normative/recommended JSON-LD @context
** TODO explain what happens when consumer run JSON-LD algorithms e.g.
* uses arrays of arrays
** TODO explain what happens when consumer chooses to run JSON-LD
algorithms e.g. expansion

If you can provide some sample data we could make this conversation more
concrete and include that data in our test suites.

>>> you can think of this as the exact equivalent of pre-infoset XML: people
>>> could be disciplined and use it in the way later formalized by XMLNS,
>>> but pre-XMLNS, it was ok for people to produce non-XMLNS XML, and the
>>> question then is what's that supposed to mean. we keep dodging that
>>> question, and i think it's going to bite us.
>> I must admit not knowing so much about history around XML technologies.
> that's ok, but we're in exactly the same spot. so for those old enough
> to remember XML, here's where we are:
> - XMLNS was a useful idea and introduced its own abstract layer, the
> infoset. pretty much all XML techs in existence today are strictly
> speaking not XML techs, but infoset techs.
> - producing non-XMLNS XML (i.e., XML that cannot be parsed into an
> infoset) these days will get you rejected by almost any toolchain out
> there.
> - there are well-defined expectations what infoset-based techs should
> make available to applications, and that seems to work well.
Thank you for this additional elaboration. What do you see as a drawback
of what I understood as a shift towards making XMLNS and infoset a

> i have yet to see any proposal how apart from magic hardcoded mapping
> rules based on JSON-LD contexts, AS2 will robustly handle extensions
> that are not conforming to JSON-LD. i guess we'll see once we have test
> cases exploring that end of the format spectrum, and making statements
> about what should be made available to applications and how.
I don't understand what you mean by "magic hardcoded mapping rules based
on JSON-LD context". I see those mappings *machine readable* first of
all, even while not supporting all JSON-LD Processing Algorithms.
Contexts could also evolve over time, and their maintainers just needs
to stay very careful not to make changes which will change meaning of
data already published.
e.g. { "@context": "" }

`$ curl  -H "Accept: application/ld+json"`

I hope tomorrow we can take some time for more in depth conversation...


Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 11:04:03 UTC