Now *that* is a pretty reasonable comparison. I would quibble here and there: I don't find JSON-LD as heavy-weight as you; the benefit of universal identifiers is an advantage in the domains I work in; and the whole graph vs. struct debate... it's a lot easier to represent a struct as a simple graph than it is to represent a graph as "structs + conventions", etc. But those are all needs-based trade-offs. The comparison is fair.
On Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC-7, Jozef Wagner wrote: > > Well the suggestion to consider JSON-LD was really out of place. Compared > to JSON-LD, EDN belongs to the category of lightweight, schemaless and > streaming friendly data serialization formats. JSON-LD is closer to e.g. > Turtle or RDF/XML. It serves a different purpose and has different goals > than EDN. > > JSON-LD is a representation of labeled, directed graph of nodes [1]. The > smallest thing you can represent in it is a graph of nodes. You may make > analogy between IRI [2] node and EDN map, but note that in JSON-LD, every > property must be a valid IRI. > > Besides other IRI nodes as a property values, JSON-LD supports integers, > floats, strings, booleans and custom types through typed values, which is > something like edn tagged elements but can be only applied to string > values. > > JSON-LD has no built in support for nils and characters, and no support > for random-access vectors. JSON-LD has a concept of unordered and ordered > collections (which is an improvement compared to RDF [3]), which > corresponds to EDN set and list types. > > While the motivation behind JSON-LD is to be a simple Microdata/RDFa > alternative for web services, over engineered technologies lurks underneath > and they sometimes leak through the JSON-LD facade. I'm pessimistic that it > will slip (again) into unnecessary complex ontologies and rigid schemas no > one wants to use. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#data-model-overview > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#dfn-iri > [3] see section 'Decision 3' at > http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/ > > Jozef > > On Saturday, May 31, 2014 5:32:55 PM UTC+2, Patrick Logan wrote: >> >> Brilliant analysis. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
