4 ms·
> Before JSON-LD there was a nest of other, more XMLy, standards emitted by the various web steering groups. These actually have very, very deep support in many
by Devasta 2y ago
> Before JSON-LD there was a nest of other, more XMLy, standards emitted by the various web steering groups. These actually have very, very deep support in many places (for example in library and archival systems) but on the open web they are not a goer.
If archival systems and library's are using XML, wouldn't it be preferable to follow their lead and whatever standards they are using? Since they are the ones who are going to use this stuff most, most likely.
If nothing else, you can add a processing instruction to the document they use to convert it to HTML.
- whartung 2y agoThe format really isn’t much of an issue. From an information point of view, the content of the different formats are identical, and translation among them is straightforward. Promoting JSON-LD potentially makes it more palatable to the modern web creators, perhaps increasing adoption. The bots have already adapted.
- cess11 2y agoYou're aware of straightforward translations to and from E-ARK SIP and CSIP? Between what formats? As far as I can tell archivists don't care about "modern web creators", and they likely shouldn't, since archiving is a long term project. I know I don't, and I'm only building software for digital archiving.
- tannhaeuser 2y agoIf by that the author means JSON-LD has replaced MarcXML, BibTex records, and other bibliographic information systems, then that's very much not the case.
- AlecSchueler 2y agoThey recognise that in the quoted paragraph. The JSON-LD thing was only about the open web: > [MarcXML, BibTex etc] actually have very, very deep support in many places (for example in library and archival systems) but on the open web they are not a goer.
- _heimdall 2y ago> If nothing else, you can add a processing instruction to the document they use to convert it to HTML. Like XSLT?