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 jeroendedauw@gmail.com 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 Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata