[openbiblio-dev] bibjson -request for feedback

Tue Feb 21 19:23:46 UTC 2012

A few thoughts on this on top of Peter and Jim's comments:

Representation of namespace for display and function (index, 
disambiguation?) is almost certainly required for any hefty standards we 
will want to import either in this project or in the future. So we need 
the functionality at the JSON-LD implementation looks relatively clean 
and workable.

It also creates something of design precedent at a relatively early 
stage. If we feel there are other functions that we wish to adopt into 
BibJson that JSON-LD can do, be it a bit clunkily, would we be obliged 
to follow JSON-LD at first refusa? or would we be free to stay with our 
own slim-line choice or adopt it from say, JSON-RDF (creating a 
'franken-standard)

As we are doing this to adopt JSON-LD vaildators, I suspect that would 
answer my question.

Ultimately, its not a massive issue, JSON representations tend to fall 
into objects comprised of lists and pairs, so mapping in parsers should 
be achievable.

I also feel that all discussions re: standards should be prefixed by 
five seconds enforced staring at this strip ;)

http://xkcd.com/927/

On 21/02/2012 19:01, Jim Pitman wrote:
> Mark MacGillivray<mark.macgillivray at okfn.org>  wrote:
>
>> http://openbiblio.net/2012/02/21/json-ld-bibjson/
>
> Thanks Mark, this initiates an important discussion.
>
> Generally, I think
> 1) we should support namespaces, and
> 2) we should offer a simple default namespace, like what we are using now,
> which will be adequate for most purposes.
>
> Anyone with special needs can then construct their own namespace.
>
> A notion of namespaces was provided in the the original BibJSON spec through what was called
> there a Linkage Schema.  I couldnt quickly find the link to the original spec beneath
> http://bibjson.org/.  Please could you post that beneath bibjson.org and forward the link
> to the list?  It should be instructive to compare/contrast the original BJ spec with
> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/
> The original BJ spec was some attempt to emulate that W3C style.
> I'm not sure how far we need to bend in that direction to keep up momentum with BibJSON dev.
> Clearly there is some cost in doing so.
> Peter can you comment on that tradeoff from your experience?
> I'm not pressing to revert to the old spec, but it would be timely to review
> the functionality provided there, fairly unobtrusively as I recall, to map common terms
> to formal namespaces, and decide if that would be adequate namespace support.
>
>
> My main question, is what do we gain from JSON-LD, rather than a simpler
> JSON format we like better, which may be enough to map to JSON-LD if that gains traction?
> Are there examples of substantial datasets in JSON-LD?
> Well supported tools for import/export from other formats?
>
> If JSON-LD is rich enough to contain all we need, and not so complex it slows us down,
> we could go for it, and try to generate some interest from the JSON-LD community
> in BibJSON as JSON-LD. However, I have been burned before by premature attempts at RDF-ization
> of what should be kept sofar as possible a simple record format. If LD brings us real
> rewards, then maybe, but if not I am wary.
>
>> Our next project sprint is on March 12th, where we will be updating
>> parsers, so final decision will be made and implemented then, and
>> pushed to the repo and to bibsoup.net
>
> Seems like a good timeline.
>
> --Jim
> ----------------------------------------------
> Jim Pitman
> Professor of Statistics and Mathematics
> University of California
> 367 Evans Hall # 3860
> Berkeley, CA 94720-3860
>
> ph: 510-642-9970  fax: 510-642-7892
> e-mail: pitman at stat.berkeley.edu
> URL: http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/pitman
>
> _______________________________________________
> openbiblio-dev mailing list
> openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-dev

-- 
Edmund Chamberlain
Systems Development Librarian
Electronic Services and Systems
Cambridge University Library
West Road,
Cambridge
CB3 9DR

tel: (+44) 01223 747437
fax: (+44) 01223 333160

email: emc59 at cam.ac.uk

Try LibrarySearch at http://search.lib.cam.ac.uk - a new way to discover
Cambridge Library Collections