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

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

Bernd,

IRT Provenance see the PROV family of documents http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-overview/, the RDF/OWL would use PROV-O. 

Best,
Shawn

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Grobauer, Bernd <Bernd.Grobauer@siemens.com> wrote:

Hi,

>
> 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.
>

Sorry if this is a trivial question ... I am not sure whether
I understand the "default serialization" correctly: would that
be a kind of JSONSchema(-like) definition that defines
one of the many ways in which CTI-data could be expressed
in JSON-LD as the standard way? Or would that be something else?

Related to this question: If I am a "_javascript_
person" and I receive CTI serialized in one
of the RDF-formats (triples or whatever): is there a translation back
to the default serialization in JSON? If that is not the case,
then the "default serialization" and the alternative translations
are not on the same level, since a "_javascript_ person" would
not be able to deal with any but the default serialization, so
sending that person RDF_XYZ would not work.

Something else I would like to understand: how does RDF et al.
deal with (1) provenance of data (i.e., keeping track of
who sent what, how it was produced) and (2) versioning?
Would the meta data required for these aspects be
also encoded in RDF and then interpreted by the receiver
of serialized data, or would that be a task for the
transport protocol that is kept outside the RDF stuff?

Sorry again if these are trivial questions...

Kind regards,

Bernd

>
>
> (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 <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).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>