I'm not Martynas, so you didn't misname anyone that I saw. JSON-LD can certainly help with this: any time you have JSON, and you wish it were RDF, JSON-LD is there for you! Whether it's the best choice, only you can say. Keep in mind that JSON-LD contexts can take JSON and create triples (or even quads) from properties. That's it. It cannot create triples that aren't translated directly from a property (except for rdf:type triples, which are a bit weird). It cannot transform data values.
You might end up with a two-stage process, in which you first mung your JSON (as JSON) as need be to clean the data, and then apply a context and let Jena read the RDF directly. If the data is already in a form that is close to what you need, the first phase might be short or absent. If the data is wacky, the gains from introducing JSON-LD might be very small. ajs6f > On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Marco Neumann <[email protected]> wrote: > > good to know that we are on the same page here Adam. With regards to json > let's limit the scope of the discussion here to the Jena project for now. I > am not looking at an alternative to JSON-LD, correct my if I am wrong but > as far as my limited understanding of JSON-LD goes it is a way to > store/serialize RDF like data in a json format. while my use case would be > a customer that presents any data in json and wants me to read this into a > sparql endpoint for further inspection (with bnodes for arrays, warts and > all). Currently I have to programmatically write transformations to allow > me to read the data into a Jena store. Can JSON-LD already help me with > this task? > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:47 PM ajs6f <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree _very heartily_ with the caution that Andy and Marco are >> expressing. I've been following the conversation on [email protected] >> and I have yet to hear anything that seems very useful or practical to me. >> >> That having been said, and speaking very much as a member of W3C's JSON-LD >> Working Group, I'm also not ecstatic about setting up an alternative to >> JSON-LD. Perhaps you could say a little about why it's not a good choice >> for data access? I would hope that you would be able to equip your generic >> JSON with a JSON-LD context and roll on without any special new Jena >> tooling needed... is that not possible (or optimal) for some reason? If >> it's related to Jena, we can talk about it here, and if it's related to >> JSON-LD, I'd be very happy to take your concern to the WG. >> >> ajs6f >> >>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 7:40 AM, Marco Neumann <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I agree Andy, there is no need to rush things here and break the API. >> Maybe >>> we could provide an in memory model for "Generalized RDF" as sandbox for >>> people to play with. But what I'd like to see are more bridges to the >> json >>> community as it has become the defacto lingua franca for data exchange on >>> the web now. >>> >>> In particular with regards to generic json rather than json-ld. possibly >> a >>> generic mapping to a json dataset assembler could work for data access >> and >>> transformation. has anybody done anything here already? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 2:11 PM Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Internally, that means Graph/Node/Triple and the ARQ engine, Jena really >>>> works on what is called "Generalized RDF" in RDF 1.1 - so literals as >>>> subjects, literals as predicates blank nodes as predicates - work just >>>> fine. Whether they are a good idea is a different question. >>>> >>>> RDF* works as well (in-memory graphs). Jena has Node_Triple and >>>> Node_Graph nowadays for completeness. >>>> >>>> If we get into structured values (lists not encoded in triples, >>>> sets/bags as datastructures - and these are things property graphs and >>>> traditionally SQL also find it hard to handle), there would be work to >>>> do, but it's not impossible. >>>> >>>> The impact is on the Model API is where the impact is. >>>> >>>> Personal opinion about changing the core specs: >>>> >>>> Being "better"isn't enough. There is lots of investment in people's >>>> time and energy has gone in to learning about RDF and communicating >>>> about RDF. >>>> >>>> The impact is when new data meets old apps but also existing >>>> thinking/learning/blogs/books/... >>>> >>>> Changes to the basics need to meet a higher barrier than "better". >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> On 22/11/2018 13:13, Marco Neumann wrote: >>>>> are we prepared in Jena for such a move on the RDF syntax? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>>>> From: Tim Berners-Lee <[email protected]> >>>>> Date: Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 1:05 PM >>>>> Subject: ✅ Literals as subjects Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal >>>>> To: David Booth <[email protected]> >>>>> Cc: SW-forum Web <[email protected]>, Dan Brickley < >> [email protected] >>>>> , >>>>> Sean B. Palmer <[email protected]>, Olaf Hartig <[email protected] >>> , >>>>> Axel Polleres <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2018-11 -21, at 22:40, David Booth <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 7. Literals as subjects. RDF should allow "anyone to say >>>>> anything about anything", but RDF does not currently allow >>>>> literals as subjects! (One work-around is to use -- you guessed >>>>> it -- a blank node, which in turn is asserted to be owl:sameAs >>>>> the literal.) This deficiency may seem unimportant relative >>>>> to other RDF difficulties, but it is a peculiar anomaly that >>>>> may have greater impact than we realize. Imagine an *average* >>>>> developer, new to RDF, who unknowingly violates this rule and >>>>> is puzzled when it doesn't work. Negative experiences like >>>>> that drive people away. Even more insidiously, imagine this >>>>> developer tries to CONSTRUCT triples using a SPARQL query, >>>>> and some of those triples happen to have literals in the >>>>> subject position. Per the SPARQL standard, those triples will >>>>> be silently eliminated from the results,[13] which could lead >>>>> to silently producing wrong answers from the application -- >>>>> the worst of all possible bugs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Agreed. >>>>> >>>>> I thought we had fixed that in some later spec but I guess not. >>>>> >>>>> All code I have written, like cwm and rdflib.js, allows the same things >>>> in >>>>> subject and object positions. Life is too short for arbitrary >>>> unnecessary >>>>> asymmetry. >>>>> >>>>> timbl >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> --- >>> Marco Neumann >>> KONA >> >> > > -- > > > --- > Marco Neumann > KONA
