On 02.12.2015 23:17, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
JSON-LD does add complexity over plain JSON -- because it also can be
interpreted as RDF. And that makes all the difference.
The importance of this distinction cannot be overstated. If one views
some custom JSON and JSON-LD (and by extension, RDF) as two
alternative formats for doing the same thing, than clearly one fails
to grasp what the semantics and web of data are about.
Well, we have only one database. So, in our case, all exports are,
indeed, "alternative formats for the same thing". :-)
But, more seriously: we already support RDF exports, LOD-style and in
dumps. The question for JSON-LD is not "do we appreciate the semantic
clarity of RDF" but "should we add another RDF syntax to our exports"? I
guess most RDF tools will be happy with NTriples, so there might not be
any benefit for them to have JSON-LD in addition. The other question is
if the API that Jeroen announced here is actually something that RDF
crawlers would like to use (in which case it would help to support at
least the RDF formats we already have elsewhere). That's what I meant
when referring to use cases.
Markus
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Jeroen De Dauw <[email protected]> wrote:
Hey,
Conal, thanks for explaining. The items are indeed not linked. Indeed, the
current format hides the fact that they are items altogether. Perhaps this
is going a step too far, and it is better to take an approach similar to
that of Hay: still have a dedicated wikibase-item data type for which the
value includes the id, but also the label. What are your thoughts on using
this approach [0]? (Everyone is welcome to comment on this.) As you can see,
it makes the format significantly more verbose and is not quite as trivial
to use when you don't care about the links or ids. It's still a lot simpler
than dealing with the canonical Wikibase item format, and perhaps strikes a
better balance than what I created initially.
[0] https://gist.github.com/JeroenDeDauw/fc17f9fdd2e4567a17ff
And if the data serialization is JSON, why not use JSON-LD which is
all the rage these days? http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not really familiar with JSON-LD and quickly
read through the examples there. While this is certainly interesting, I
wonder what the actual benefits are, going on the assumption that most
developers are unfamiliar with this format. It does add complexity, so I'm
quite hesitant to use this in the main format. That said, this might be a
good candidate for an additional response format. (And adding additional
formats to the API in a clean way ought to be quite easy, see
https://github.com/JeroenDeDauw/QueryrAPI/issues/39)
Cheers
--
Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com
Software craftsmanship advocate
~=[,,_,,]:3
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
