Re: WebID default serialization for WebID 2.x

These days, I do not hold a strong opinion about WebID serialization
requirements. All the systems I work on make use of the Turtle requirements
defined in the WebID draft spec, and I do not have any strong need for that
to change.

However, I would say that *if* the WebID draft were to adopt a stance on
JSON-LD I would highly recommend defining a particular context URI as part
of the specification. With a well-designed context URI, JSON-LD
serializations have a lot to offer. See, for instance:

* W3C Verifiable Credentials: https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#json-ld
* W3C Web Annotations:
https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#serialization-of-the-model
* W3C Activity Streams 2.0:
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#jsonld

In these cases, the structured JSON-LD is exceedingly easy to work with on
both client and server.

Without a well-defined context, however, the vagaries in
compact/expanded/flattened JSON-LD serializations provide a high bar for
data parsing, and you lose a lot of the advantages that JSON-LD has to
offer in the first place. In fact, when given the choice between Turtle (or
other RDF serializations) and JSON-LD without a structured context, I would
always choose Turtle.

-Aaron


On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 11:50 AM Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:

> Quoting Sebastian Hellmann (2022-01-21 17:29:46)
> > I would argue for a more clear definition of what the webID publisher
> > should/must provide, simply to prevent wiggle space.
>
> So would you find it acceptable that the WebID spec states that
> publishers SHOULD provide JSON-LD serialization of the RDF data (and
> consumers SHOULD be capable of parsing JSON-LD)?
>
> ...since that is the position held by (at least) Kingsley Idehen and
> Aaron Coburn and me.
>
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private