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

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

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 08:47:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CABevsUFG4yQ1sExGNJKGUNGi_yB4QxurotX1J5pB2pTV7gnrbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
Cc: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
Thanks Elf!

My apologies for the f2f, bad timing with other meetings and insufficient
notice to attend from the west coast.  I hope that there will be other
participants beyond Randall and Benjamin, but they can certainly wave the
annotation and JSON-LD flag.

Rob



On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:39 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:

> 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"
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-17#Day_1_-_Tuesday_17_March_2015
>
> I see Randall Leeds and Benjamin Young on a list of invited oservers
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-17#Invited_Observers
> 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
> Requirements
> * 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)
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Candidates
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> >
> > 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.
> >>
> >>
>
>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Information Standards Advocate
Digital Library Systems and Services
Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 16:47:34 UTC

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