3 ms·

> JSON is foundational stuff for the web JSON is not foundational, actually harmful because it ditches the main idea of web (linking things) for pushing around

> JSON is foundational stuff for the web JSON is not foundational, actually harmful because it ditches the main idea of web (linking things) for pushing around schemaless hodgepodge data structures...

nologic01 4y ago
There is no contradiction. Json simply asserts that the basic exchange blob should be as simple as possible. Linking and schemas and validation and all that stuff are terribly important but a good and simple approach would ADD them when needed, not inflict you with maximum complexity for even the simplest thing. In this respect json-ld has shown one way this can be done but overall its a problem that still asks for a brilliant innovator to solve.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Rant warning. There is no complexity in linking, there's nothing simpler than RDF. The whole reason you think it's complex is... drumroll... JSON. It made these bespoke unlinkable structures proliferate and de facto standard. Later JSON-LD tried to bring it back to sanity but because it still has to be JSON (because devs now hate everything else) the end result is complex, inscrutable (contexts?? @reverse???) and usually misunderstood.
  - nologic01 4y ago
    Linking is a conceptual requirement, not a format feature. It is a more complex requirement so it naturally needs more complex semantics to implement. So far so unavoidable. A good design would allow progressively adding semantic complexity iff needed. I think the popularity of json was just because xml violated this very simple design aspect. Unfortunately it is true that linking, metadata, ontologies and all that stuff are required as the ambition of information exchange increases. People who deny that obviously have never worked on any domain that requires significant data exchanges between many independent actors. So now we are stuck with two sub-optimal solutions: a simple but incomplete json approach that must reinvent the wheel without destroying its good bits and a complex and hard to use xml approach that is only loved by software bureaucrats...
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Linking is very easy if the format doesn't unnecessarily make it difficult. Which JSON does.
magicalhippo 4y ago
> pushing around schemaless hodgepodge Ah, but we have schemas now! https://json-schema.org/ https://json-schema.org/ I've been able to convert our XSD's 1:1 to JSON Schemas, including choice elements. I'm sure there's not a 100% overlap but most XSDs could I think.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  It's still not linked, so anti-web.

nologic01 4y ago

There is no contradiction. Json simply asserts that the basic exchange blob should be as simple as possible. Linking and schemas and validation and all that stuff are terribly important but a good and simple approach would ADD them when needed, not inflict you with maximum complexity for even the simplest thing. In this respect json-ld has shown one way this can be done but overall its a problem that still asks for a brilliant innovator to solve.

throwaway290 4y ago
Rant warning. There is no complexity in linking, there's nothing simpler than RDF. The whole reason you think it's complex is... drumroll... JSON. It made these bespoke unlinkable structures proliferate and de facto standard. Later JSON-LD tried to bring it back to sanity but because it still has to be JSON (because devs now hate everything else) the end result is complex, inscrutable (contexts?? @reverse???) and usually misunderstood.
- nologic01 4y ago
  Linking is a conceptual requirement, not a format feature. It is a more complex requirement so it naturally needs more complex semantics to implement. So far so unavoidable. A good design would allow progressively adding semantic complexity iff needed. I think the popularity of json was just because xml violated this very simple design aspect. Unfortunately it is true that linking, metadata, ontologies and all that stuff are required as the ambition of information exchange increases. People who deny that obviously have never worked on any domain that requires significant data exchanges between many independent actors. So now we are stuck with two sub-optimal solutions: a simple but incomplete json approach that must reinvent the wheel without destroying its good bits and a complex and hard to use xml approach that is only loved by software bureaucrats...
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Linking is very easy if the format doesn't unnecessarily make it difficult. Which JSON does.

magicalhippo 4y ago

> pushing around schemaless hodgepodge Ah, but we have schemas now! https://json-schema.org/ https://json-schema.org/ I've been able to convert our XSD's 1:1 to JSON Schemas, including choice elements. I'm sure there's not a 100% overlap but most XSDs could I think.

throwaway290 4y ago
It's still not linked, so anti-web.