W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > March 2015

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

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:39:00 +0100
Message-ID: <54F85C74.8050800@wwelves.org>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
CC: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
On 02/08/2015 07:09 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> Hi Harry, all,
> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>> On 02/06/2015 11:58 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 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).
> There's a difference between "not required" and non-normative: a feature
> can be normatively not required by way of SHOULD or MAY (as you no doubt
> realize).
> A decision not to specify JSON-LD normatively at all will prevent it from
> being used in linked data environments, as it would lack the JSON-LD
> context that maps from JSON into RDF.  This would mean that the spec is
> less likely to be used by other JSON-LD oriented specifications and
> systems, such as in the Annotation WG, for the sake of not adding a single
> key and value to the top level JSON object.
> I don't think you can sit on the fence for this one, I'm afraid.
Hi Rob,

I just added proposal to our next Face 2 Face agenda
"Discuss JSON-LD and RDF role[1] with Web Annotation WG members"

I see Randall Leeds and Benjamin Young on a list of invited oservers
ACTION-40 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/40

Maybe a good time to clarify with each other how proper use of JSON-LD
could contribute to keeping our deliverables well aligned?

We could also take it as opportunity to coordinate on Use Cases and
* https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Feb/0152.html
* https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories/Groupings

I hope we will also discuss Linked Data Platform, Hydra and Linked Data
Fragments as inputs to Social API (all of them RDF/JSON-LD based)


> Rob
>> 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.

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 13:39:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 December 2016 15:48:20 UTC