Re: Low power devices (was: webid serializations consensus 2023)

st 5. 7. 2023 v 18:16 odesílatel Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
napsal:

>
> I feel I should clarify a few points.
>
> > Im saying that it's been embraced, used, and widely adopted already.
> Schema.org is used in billions of pages.  It's not niche, it's so
> matinstream, that it's the de-facto semantic web, right now
> >
> > But it IS JSON-LD.  And that is missing from the webid spec.  And if we
> dont add it in, it might not make it to the final draft.
>
> By “niche” I was referring to my use case at the crossroad of corporate
> and IoT, not to JSON-LD. I agree that the latter is clearly not niche, I
> should have phrased it better.
>
> Let me try to separate the two (adjacent) topics. On one side, I have
> reservations when it comes to using JSON-LD with low-power devices, due to
> its complexity, and in contexts where retrieval of external resources might
> not be allowed, due to the fact that a compliant parser needs to be able to
> retrieve contexts. The only way around this would be to mandate the use of
> a subset of JSON-LD.
>
> On the other side there’s the relationship between JSON-LD and WebID. I
> would _prefer_ for WebID to not mandate (as in MUST) JSON-LD but merely
> suggest it or simply remain neutral on the topic of serialization format. I
> think doing so would open up the spec to a broader variety of use cases.
> That said, I agree that JSON-LD is becoming the de-facto RDF serialization
> format and any spec in the realm of LD / RDF must be compatible with it (at
> minimum).
>

> I can only see two ways to reconcile these:
>
> 1. either WebID chooses not to mandate JSON-LD (as in MUST); or
> 2. WebID chooses to primarily (although not exclusively, of course) target
> use cases where computational power and network access are non-issues to
> prioritize JSON-LD compat. I would not like this, of course, but I would
> understand the reasoning behind it.
>
> Note that I’m not taking into consideration options like mandating context
> inlining as that would reduce compat. with the wider JSON-LD ecosystem,
> which I would find worse than not supporting JSON at all.
>
> Obviously all this is my personal view on things. I hope I have managed to
> explain myself better!
>

The spec simply needs to reflect the consensus on JSON-LD adoption, with
some ongoing discussion on the usage of SHOULD vs MUST. Specific use cases,
like parsing or offline scenarios, aren't ruled out; they have their own
profiles, not all of which need to be included in the WebID spec. There
could be many use cases and corresponding profiles for WebID.

At present, only Turtle is included, reflecting consensus from a decade
ago. Incorporating inline contexts is technically simple and could be
achieved with a single line of editorial text.

However, we should follow a logical sequence - discussing the incorporation
of JSON-LD before considering inline contexts or profiles.