idk where to really put this (might turn into a blog post later or something). it’s what you might call a “hot take”, certainly a heterodox one to some parts of the broader #fediverse community. this is in response to recent discussion on “what do you want to see from AP/AS2 specs” (in context of wg rechartering) mostly devolving into people complaining about JSON-LD and extensibility, some even about namespacing in general (there was a suggestion to use UUID vocab terms. i’m not joking)
1/?
@[email protected] Thanks for the thread! Coming myself from a linked data background and having adopted a simple use of JSON-LD as Linked Open Usable Data (LOUD), I never understood (and still don’t understand) what problems people have with JSON-LD in AP and AS. I am much in favour of an open world approach. It is quite powerful if people share their extensions and try to find and reuse solutions by others. In the end, we’d create shared data models together: a social act for the social web.
@[email protected] the core of the complaint is that people want to handle one key and one key only. they don’t want to map terms to IRIs, or IRIs to terms. they’d prefer picking exactly one symbol and use that as the property key.
@[email protected] And I always thought that this is some of the LD patterns that easily make sense: to globally identify each term used in your data by an IRI and to use the same IRI as a link to the term’s documentation. Apparently, I was wrong.
OTOH, I get it when people don’t think they need (to understand) JSON-LD but I also think it is not too much to ask to follow community patterns by slapping a context link into your JSON.