Re: AS2.0: JSON and/or RDF based?

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



On 02/06/2015 11:58 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> Ahoy o/
> 
> I think we could try document this topic somewhere on a wiki. In
> recent conversation on github with Erik[1] we stumbled upon again
> on topic of conceptual model used in Activity Streams 2.0 
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_Syntax_RDF
> 
> Personally I don't see conflict between JSON and RDF mostly thanks
> to availability of JSON-LD. Currently AS2.0 not only uses JSON-LD
> but AS2.0 Vocabulary also takes advantage of RDFS and even OWL.
> Since we clearly reuse established conceptual model, maybe we could
> clarify and document adopted aspects?

I think the charter is clear: It's JSON-based. Any use of RDF(S) or
OWL inference is fine or alternative serializations is fine, but
should not be required (and thus non-normative). If people want to
document how Link Relations etc. can be aligned with RDF, that's fine
and can be done informatively (as for some, it will definitely be
useful) as long as it does not force consuming or producing
applications to adopt a whole other data model.

   cheers,
      harry

> 
> I see it similar to adopting aspects of well established Link
> Relations, in our API work for example. It will not conflict with
> charter JSON requirement as far as I can tell. Further aligning
> Link Relations and RDF[2] can make it all even more straight
> forward! Also LDP and Hydra, both mentioned as API candidates,
> strongly incorporate both Linked Data and Link Relations. Linked
> Data Fragments as well provide some solid *hypermedia* REST read
> access interface. Last but not least - our charter also mentions
> JSON-LD as potential data transfer syntax (-*LD*), right after
> "describe the data using URIs in an extensible manner"...
> 
> JSON provides well adopted serialization but we still need to work
> with conceptual models. While many efforts go into experiments with
> novel approaches. I see both W3C and IndieWeb having strong
> tradition on building upon existing and established work.
> 
> I hope it will not turn into a permathread but instead becomes
> focused clarifying and documenting effort :)
> 
> Kudos!
> 
> [1] 
> https://github.com/openbadges/openbadges-specification/pull/22#issuecomment-73303945
>
> 
[2] https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/39
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=WHLl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Sunday, 8 February 2015 16:10:29 UTC