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

Re: ISSUE-7: Are as consumers required to understand the pre-json-ld syntax?

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:52:14 +0100
Message-ID: <54F96ABE.6080005@wwelves.org>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Social Web Working Group <public-socialweb@w3.org>
CC: james M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
On 03/06/2015 09:31 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello elf.
hi Erik,

> On 2015-03-05 18:36, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>> On 10/29/2014 01:43 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:
>>> On 2014-10-28, 17:37, Social Web Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>> ISSUE-7: Are as consumers required to understand the pre-json-ld
>>>> syntax?
>>>> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/7
>>> that would ideally be backed by test cases: have AS1 test cases, define
>>> how it is supposed to be understood in AS2 (MUST be accepted by an AS2
>>> consumer or not), and then see how implementation are processing this.
>>> in terms of spec writing, this is what i think should show up in the
>>> "processing model" section: what does the spec say how the syntax and
>>> the data model view connect?
>> Erik, James, do you have any updates on this one?
> i am afraid not. we're happily using AS1 with extensions and have pretty
> much defined our own extension and processing model. but this would not
> map well into AS2 if JSON-LD is a required part of the processing model,
> because our extensions are native JSON.
could you please share more information about issues you mention with
mapping AS1 to JSON-LD based AS2?
anything related to limitations identified in this conversation
* https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2014Dec/0000.html
* https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2014Dec/0004.html

> to me, ISSUE-7 can only be resolved meaningfully once we have a spec
> structure that either makes it clear that AS is JSON-based and there's a
> separate (and optional) "handling AS as RDF via JSON-LD" spec, or where
> we bite the bullet and say "AS *is* RDF, but limited to one specific
> serialization". both are possible routes, but so far we're avoiding a
> clear answer, which is going to bite us once we have RDF-based and
> non-RDF-based implementations trying to interoperate.
> http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/2015/02/json-or-rdf-just-decide.html

during face 2 face we will also discuss it with Annotations WG, I also
hope to touch topic of reusing LDP and possibly Hydra + LDF (all

also in IG we identified big overlap with work in Credentials CG

IMO JSON-LD provides solid foundations to align our work with efforts in
other W3C groups. if we decide not to use it, i think we should have
solid (and well documented) reasons motivating such choice, for me
compatibility with AS1 doesn't sound like a reason for not using
JSON-LD, but of course everyone should develop one's own opinion...


Received on Friday, 6 March 2015 08:52:32 UTC

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