Re: [cti-users] Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was: MTI Binding)

[Shawn Riley <shawn.p.riley@gmail.com>]

Just in case you are looking for developers/engineers that understand RDF, here is a 2012 list of some of the companies who use semantic technology (RDF) where you might be able to find some experience. http://www.webnodes.com/who-uses-semantic-tech-today

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Cory Casanave <cory-c@modeldriven.com> wrote:

For “RDF people”, this is a non-issue. You call a library to read or write your data and it takes care of serialization. You will be able to accept data in any of the formats and not care, you deal with the RDF API and local language objects. This is why my specific knowledge of JSON-LD is minimal, it is just something a library takes care of.

 

I do understand the perspective of “_javascript_ people” who need to deal with the data in a specific syntax and don’t want to know about RDF.

In that the RDF people should not care and JSON people care a bunch it would seem a good idea to have a default serialization in JSON.

 

(I said I would shut up and I’m not doing well)

 

From: cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Shawn Riley
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:40 AM
To: Jordan, Bret
Cc: cti-users@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [cti-users] Towards a better understanding of JSON-LD (Was: MTI Binding)

 

Help me understand this statement "Allowing people to send "RDF/JSON-LD (Hardback), RDF/XML (Paperback), RDF/Turtle (Amazon Kindle), RDF/N-Triples " will just mean this effort will be an epic failure and no one will be able to talk to each other" 

 

Since all of those formats are RDF serializations, there are existing translators today that can convert RDF/JSON-LD to RDF/XML or RDF/Turtle or any other RDF/serialization format. This should increase adoption without forcing everyone to only use JSON. 

 

 

 

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Jordan, Bret <bret.jordan@bluecoat.com> wrote:

You said: 

 

"I have to believe that giving the community a choice of valid RDF based serialization formats (Hardback, Paperback, Amazon Kindle, Apple iPad, etc) will increase adoption faster than locking everyone into one serialization format like Hardback (JSON) or Paperback (XML). "

 

This is not a good idea IMO.  We need a default on the wire solution that every one uses.  Eric mentioned that in his email earlier today.   Allowing people to send "RDF/JSON-LD (Hardback), RDF/XML (Paperback), RDF/Turtle (Amazon Kindle), RDF/N-Triples " will just mean this effort will be an epic failure and no one will be able to talk to each other.  

 

Remember developers will be working with the on-the-wire formats.  I do not like the hand waving of, oh the software will figure it out.  No, developers need to write the software that consumes it and does something with it.  Further, given that most people in this community have a hard time with understanding RDF and why it is needed, that goes to show that most developers in the wild probably also have a hard time understanding it.  The average open source, web application, and APP developers want JSON, plain and simple and probably do not know how to even work with RDF.  The more complicated we make this, the more esoteric solutions we use, the less likely they will code to it.  

 

I am a huge proponent of UML models with JSON schema bindings.  Very simple, very easy to understand, and very easy to use.  The cost of entry for people to get started is minimal.  If we want adoption, we need things to be simple and easy.  I do not view RDF as a solution for STIX as the complexity cost will drive people away.  UML is a great middle ground, average developers and companies and vendors can look at the UML models and quickly and easily understand what is going on and what they need to do in their products / software / solutions.  Then if the data over the wire is in JSON schema, they can quickly and easily put this in to use in their PHP applications, their JAVA applications, their C++ applications, etc...

 

 

Thanks,

 

Bret

 

 

 

Bret Jordan CISSP

Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO

Blue Coat Systems

PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050

"Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg." 

 

On Oct 7, 2015, at 08:04, Shawn Riley <shawn.p.riley@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

 

If you remember the XML vs RDF analogy of A Christmas Carol from Cambridge Semantics, http://www.cambridgesemantics.com/semantic-university/rdf-vs-xml, this example might help in better understanding the JSON vs RDF/JSON-LD choice.

 

If STIX reports were Books.

 

A STIX JSONSchema Book Store offers STIX books in JSON (Hardback)

 

A STIX RDF/OWL Book Store offers STIX Books in multiple RDF serializations. RDF/JSON-LD (Hardback), RDF/XML (Paperback), RDF/Turtle (Amazon Kindle), RDF/N-Triples (Apple iPad), etc.

 

The content of the STIX books from the STIX RDF/OWL Book Store is the same regardless of the on the wire serialization (RDF/JSON-LD, RDF/XML, etc) with dozens of tools already available that can convert between RDF serialization formats in case you want to read your book in another RDF serialization.

 

I have to believe that giving the community a choice of valid RDF based serialization formats (Hardback, Paperback, Amazon Kindle, Apple iPad, etc) will increase adoption faster than locking everyone into one serialization format like Hardback (JSON) or Paperback (XML).