Re: Turtle and JSON-LD Matter

On 16 July 2014 16:19, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> Is there any reason why Turtle and JSON-LD cannot be on equal footing in
> regards to the WebID spec?
>

I dont see an issue with this personally.

But, just a note they are quite different serializations.  Turtle is a self
contained document, JSON LD can have includes that need to be fetched
asynchronously.  So, for example, a library verifying JSON LD would need to
be waiting on, say, a context file before we can get at the triples.
Turtle can be verified synchronously, without a dependency on an HTTP round
trip.

I dont think it's too hard to produce JSON LD, because you can do a
relatively straight forward translation from triples.

Consuming it may be slightly more work.


>
> There's no reason why WebID-Profile documents MUST be comprised of RDF
> content in Turtle Notation.
>
> Its crystal clear that we have two critical developer communities that
> coalesce around Turtle and JSON-LD  i.e., Semantic Web and Web Developers,
> respectively. Thus, its in the best interest of adoption for the WebID spec
> to treat Turtle and JSON-LD as different RDF notations for creating RDF
> document content e.g., WebID-Profile documents.
>
> WebID-TLS implementers should be encouraged to support WebID-Profile
> documents comprised of Turtle or JSON-LD content. This is really important,
> at this point in time.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
> Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
>
>
>