Re: WebID default serialization for WebID 2.x

Quoting Aaron Coburn (2022-01-21 18:10:23)
> 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.

Sorry if I made it sound like you wanted to not keep current draft spec 
as is.  That was unintended.

[ more comments further down...]


> 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.

Thanks.  If I understand correctly, you expand on same point as 
Sebastian made in his first post today.

I agree it makes sense to recommend a specific JSON-LD serialization.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private