Jeroen I encourage you to look closely at JSON-LD, because this is precisely the use case it was designed for.
Depending on how you choose to encode your data in JSON-LD, it need not offer any additional complexities to a consumer of the data. For instance, you can supply a link to a JSON-LD Context in an HTTP Link Header. The big advantages of JSON-LD over other JSON-based representations of linked data come from the use of the JSON-LD "Context". By associating the JSON object with a Context, you can map from the strings used as JSON names (such as "sister city") to full URIs such as (I'm guessing) < https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P123>. Data consumers who wish to treat the JSON object simply as JSON can use the strings as keys, but JSON-LD aware consumers can parse the data as RDF if they wish. Even developers who don't use the JSON-LD features at runtime can at least use them to identify the meanings of those strings when they are writing their Javascript code. Conal On 3 December 2015 at 05:46, 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 > > -- Conal Tuohy http://conaltuohy.com/ @conal_tuohy +61-466-324297
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
