3 ms·
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 thes
by 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 agoLinking 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 agoLinking is very easy if the format doesn't unnecessarily make it difficult. Which JSON does.