On 21 August 2017 at 09:54, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > While I'm still generally negative on the idea of native reliance on > JSON-LD, I'll note one thing that has changed since I last looked at > it: I now see some potential concrete practical benefits to adopting > it, rather than purely theoretical ones. In particular, > https://github.com/scienceai/jsonld-vis now exists, and there wasn't > anything like that around at the time of previous discussions.
Personally, I fairly often write adhoc scripts that use the JSON API, and as it stands it's very convenient for that. From what I can see of JSON-LD (which basically equates to "it adds some extra metadata keys that don't change the data content but do change the list of keys and maybe the nesting levels") it would be somewhat inconvenient for my scripts, and add no extra capability that I would ever use. Before we consider anything like JSON-LD, I think we need a much clearer picture of who uses the JSON API. If it's production-type applications, then maybe it would be useful, but if it's mostly advoc scripts (as I suspect) it's additional complexity for little or no benefit. But this remains off-topic for now, so that's all I'll say. Paul _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
