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 11:08:51 +0100
Message-ID: <54F97CB3.1040304@wwelves.org>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>, Social Web Working Group <public-socialweb@w3.org>
On 03/06/2015 10:01 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello elf.
> On 2015-03-06 09:52, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
>> IMO JSON-LD provides solid foundations to align our work with efforts in
>> other W3C groups.
> our main goal is produce something that is used by people and developers
> outside of the W3C.
and to make sure that what we deliver fits into environment of *web*
technologies, many of which already *recommended* by W3C or currently
drafted in numerous W3C groups WG + (IG & CG)

>> 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...
> it seems to me that harry has always pointed out that plain JSON is
> something that we want to have, and that JSON-LD is icing on the cake.
> we tend to have different opinions on how easily you can put that
> particular icing on that particular cake when at the same time you want
> to maintain extensibility and robust interoperability.
i appreciate Harry's contributions, as well as his expertise and
opinion, still i see need for stronger motivation for such decision than
"Harry said..."

i also find both JSON-LD and LDP mentioned in WG charter, and to my
understanding we as a *group* can decide how we incorporate them based
on technical criteria and requirements. if you have clear examples,
other than AS1 compatibility, where using JSON-LD causes issues - let's
document them on a wiki.

> iff plain *and* RDFified views are what we want, then i would still be
> in favor of clean layering. let's have a JSON spec that talks about JSON
> only. and then let's have an "RDF view of AS" through a separate spec
> that is based on the plain one and JSON-LD.
current AS2.0 drafts use JSON-LD very directly, while putting normative
requirement of publishing compacted form generated with normative
JSON-LD @context, to make processing as plain JSON possible if not easy.
would you like to put on a table an alternative draft so we can base our
discussion on a *concrete* proposal?

i hope it doesn't sound unfriendly in any way, i just see on our next
F2F goals: "Determine steps to get Activity Streams 2.0 CR"
and think we need to keep our conversations very focused and backed by
willingness to take actions and put effort towards reaching our common goals

> cheers,

> dret.

Received on Friday, 6 March 2015 10:09:24 UTC

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