Use of JSON-LD - Githubissues

lanthaler commented 11 years ago

I just stumbled across this project and it looks highly interesting. I'm wondering if you've considered to use/support JSON-LD. It allows you to serialize the data in natural looking JSON but at the same time to map it to OGP concepts. In most cases, all you have to do is to add a single line. The example from the docu could look as follows:

{
  "@context": "http://islands.yandex.com/",
  "interaction": "BookTable",
  "web_handler": "http://menu.ru/order/table"
}

This would simplify the interpretation of responses from Web APIs enormously I think.

Of course it is also possible to embed that directly in a HTML page using a script that. The JSON-LD specification contains an example illustrating that.

The context maps the simple JSON keys in the example above to URLs from the OGP vocabulary. So the document at http://islands.yandex.com/ would look something like

{
  "@context": {
    "og": "http://ogp.me/ns#",
    "interaction": "og:interaction",
    "web_handler": "og:interaction:web_handler"
  }
}

Disclaimer: I'm one of the authors of the JSON-LD specification.

ajax-als commented 11 years ago

Hi Markus,

Thanks for your feedback! We're definitely planning to use JSON-LD as part of Islands Platform. Primarily it will be used for formatting API handlers response.

lanthaler commented 11 years ago

Awesome! Great to hear that. Let me know if there’s anything I can do to help. Btw., is there a project mailing list?

ajax-als commented 11 years ago

Btw., is there a project mailing list?

Not so far. Maybe we'll make it later.

lanthaler commented 11 years ago

OK, thanks.

The reason I’m asking is because I find your project extremely interesting. At the same time I would like to avoid a situation in which we end up with three competing approaches all essentially doing the same thing (the other two being Actions in Schema.org and Hydra). Maybe it would be possible to join forces to create a single, solid solution.

Since there's no mailing list yet, we could use the one of the Hydra W3C Community Group in the meantime. The group just launched and we haven't started our work yet so I would like to invite you and your colleagues to join the group. I would like to discuss e.g. where our approaches overlap, how they interoperate, and the rationales behind some design decisions.

Is that something you would be interested in? Would the Hydra CG group be a suitable venue for these discussions in your opinion?

Thanks a lot, Markus

ajax-als commented 11 years ago

The reason I’m asking is because I find your project extremely interesting. At the same time I would like to avoid a situation in which we end up with three competing approaches all essentially doing the same thing (the other two being Actions in Schema.org and Hydra). Maybe it would be possible to join forces to create a single, solid solution.

Absolutely. Well, actually Yandex supports Schema.org initiative and participates in Schema.org Working Group. We're actively committing in current Actions proposal and hope that it will reflect all our Islands needs. I saw your email at public-vocabs@, and I'm pretty sure that everyone will benefit from single solution (that can be expressed with different instruments though).

Since there's no mailing list yet, we could use the one of the Hydra W3C Community Group in the meantime. The group just launched and we haven't started our work yet so I would like to invite you and your colleagues to join the group. I would like to discuss e.g. where our approaches overlap, how they interoperate, and the rationales behind some design decisions.

Thanks, we appreciate your suggestion! You guys are very effective in reaching all interested parties - we're looking forward to our mutual collaboration! However I suggest to discuss all vocabulary proposals and issues at public-vocabs mailist (public-vocabs@w3.org). There we can find all Schema.org sponsors as well as wide vocabulary community.

Alex

lanthaler commented 11 years ago

Absolutely. Well, actually Yandex supports Schema.org initiative and participates in Schema.org Working Group. We're actively committing in current Actions proposal and hope that it will reflect all our Islands needs. I saw your email at public-vocabs@, and I'm pretty sure that everyone will benefit from single solution (that can be expressed with different instruments though).

Yeah, I knew you are supporting Schema.org but was confused by your usage of OGP.

Thanks, we appreciate your suggestion! You guys are very effective in reaching all interested parties - we're looking forward to our mutual collaboration! However I suggest to discuss all vocabulary proposals and issues at public-vocabs mailist (public-vocabs@w3.org). There we can find all Schema.org sponsors as well as wide vocabulary community.

OK, that's of course fine as well. Looking forward to it.

ajax-als commented 11 years ago

Yeah, I knew you are supporting Schema.org but was confused by your usage of OGP.

Now we're considering the both. Since every method has its pros and contras.

bobuk / islands

Use of JSON-LD #7