Re: internationalization issues

On 10/23/2015 01:06 PM, Aaron Parecki wrote:
> It doesn't cause any problems *parsing*, but it means you can't use
> object notation in most languages.

Apologies, I meant "parsing into object notation." I'm not quite sure
why "@" was chosen but it does have this problem with almost all
JSON-languages I know, and so using @context, @language, @type, etc. all
requires very special handling, which may limit uptake.

       cheers,
           harry

>
> $foo->@context is not valid syntax in PHP or nearly any language I can
> think of. It limits the use to array/hash notation, like
> $foo['@context'] in PHP.
>
> ----
> Aaron Parecki
> aaronparecki.com <http://aaronparecki.com>
> @aaronpk <http://twitter.com/aaronpk>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Amy G <amy@rhiaro.co.uk
> <mailto:amy@rhiaro.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     The '@' symbol seems not to cause any problems with default json
>     parsing in python and php, what were you using?
>
>     Amy
>
>     On Oct 23, 2015 9:14 AM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org
>     <mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>         Elf,
>
>         On 10/23/2015 04:49 AM, elf Pavlik wrote:
>         > On 10/22/2015 06:03 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>         >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Harry Halpin
>         <hhalpin@w3.org <mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
>         >> [snip]
>         >>> I'll try to get to this next week, but my high-level
>         feedback is likely
>         >>> for AS2.0 to be successful everything outside the basic
>         actor-verb model
>         >>> and the kinds of metadata in Winer's RSS specs/Atom should
>         be removed
>         >>> and put back in Activity Vocabulary.
>         > Harry, can you please reply with a short snippet of AS2.0
>         JSON data
>         > which uses at least one term defined in microformats.org
>         <http://microformats.org> vocabulary?
>         >
>         > I believe that you feel comfortable with backing you
>         proposal with
>         > simple 5 lines of plain JSON which I see you keep promising
>         to people!
>
>
>         People who send email use natural language :)
>
>
>         >
>         >
>         >> This makes no sense given that all of the properties are
>         ALREADY
>         >> defined in the Activity Vocabulary. The Core spec deals
>         only with the
>         >> serialization and relies on the Vocabulary document to
>         define the
>         >> actual terms.
>         >>
>         >>> I also am still strongly against the Activity Vocabulary
>         being a
>         >>> normative Recommendation, as it will lead to endless
>         bikeshedding and
>         >>> its a Sisyphean task to describe all social interactions
>         using a single
>         >>> vocabulary, and the vocabulary should align where possible
>         with
>         >>> IETF/microformats specs down to the 'string' level.
>         >>> [snip]
>         >> The Vocabulary does not attempt to define all social
>         interactions,
>         >> just a handful of those that we know are already relevant
>         to a good
>         >> number of existing social systems. If there are suggestions for
>         >> removing specific terms, then I'm all for looking at those.
>         >>
>         >> As for bike shedding, if the minimal set of terms defined
>         in the
>         >> vocabulary document are not to any specific implementers
>         liking, there
>         >> is a well defined extensibility mechanism that allows
>         developers to
>         >> use terms from other vocabularies quite easily.
>         Implementing support
>         >> for such extensions is fairly trivial (e.g.
>         >> https://github.com/jasnell/as2-schema)
>         > Does this well defined mechanism still work if
>         implementation chooses to
>         > ignore JSON-LD context? I keep hearing from Harry about
>         intentions for
>         > such practice becoming common and I would like to verify
>         that we don't
>         > contradict ourselves here!
>
>         Again, due to a relatively simple spec error on the part of
>         the JSON-LD
>         editors/Working Group, @context and any other attribute
>         defined with a
>         '@' symbol are not processed out of the box as objects by most
>         modern
>         programming languages. Thus, you have to give any JSON-LD
>         defined '@'
>         symbol special processing. While there it is possible everyone
>         will
>         start  using JSON-LD libraries, I expect many if not most
>         developers
>         will not use JSON-LD libraries but will want to consume AS2.0
>         as JSON.
>         It's possible I'm wrong, but that's the feedback I've gotten from
>         Thoughtworks (whose IE application is still waiting) and others.
>
>         In other words, we need to keep JSON-LD to keep RDF interop,
>         but realize
>         most people are not using RDF-based programming stacks. If
>         AS2.0 is to
>         be a genuine interop layer, design needs to take that into
>         account and
>         if JSON LD conventions are broken, c'est la vie.
>
>                cheers,
>                     harry
>         >
>         >
>         >> At this point in the process, it would be far more
>         productive to focus
>         >> on implementation and fixing the specific parts of the spec
>         that make
>         >> implementation difficult, etc.
>         >>
>         >> - James
>         >>
>
>
>
>