[openbiblio-dev] JISC openbib update
rufus.pollock at okfn.org
Wed May 4 16:30:56 UTC 2011
On 4 May 2011 16:33, William Waites <ww at styx.org> wrote:
> * [2011-05-04 16:25:05 +0100] Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock at okfn.org> écrit:
> ] But we're not interested in RDF/JSON (since no-one who does JSON who
> ] is not already involved in the semantic web will be interested). If
> ] RDF/JSON is all we can do why not just use our big sparql endpoint and
> ] be done with it (exaggerating a bit but not not much ...)
> Who is we?
As in 'one' ...
> ] How badly do these problems affect us in, say, bibliographica.org (as
> ] opposed to the general case)?
Is there any summary (e.g. a post to json-ld) of examples of
problematic serialization that I can look at so I understand better?
> ] But our current dictiziation / serialization is certainly no better
> ] than JSON-LD and arguably worse. That is what JSON-LD was proposed for
> ] (not some general let's serialize arbitrary RDF ...)
> Right, so if we don't want to do it properly we should just stick with
> what we have. The marginal benefit of moving to JSON-LD is small if it
> is just special case code for bibliographica.
That was precisely the suggestion: doing this just for bibliographica.
While the benefit would be marginal the cost would be marginal to and
it does seem that JSON-LD has substantially more expressiveness and
precision than what we currently have. I guess it depends on estimated
cost here ...
> ] b) But RDF/JSON is no good for general consumers (the very reason we
> ] are creating the JSON APIs)
> There's no problem having an RDF/JSON serialisation along side the
> work where you actually care about the meaning of the data. And as was
> proven, is easy to do.
But RDF/JSON is nothing like what the average web dev would expect
from a JSON API (which was one of the main points of having the JSON
More information about the openbiblio-dev