[openbiblio-dev] bibjson -request for feedback

[Mark MacGillivray]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Edmund Chamberlain <emc59 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> 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)

I don't feel obliged to do anything :) If we don't like future
changes, we don't do it.


> I also feel that all discussions re: standards should be prefixed by five
> seconds enforced staring at this strip ;)
>
> http://xkcd.com/927/

Absolutely (and linked already)

Mark


>
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openbiblio-dev mailing list
> openbiblio-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/openbiblio-dev