Re: [ANN] JSON/CLJ/EDN comparison table

[Patrick Logan]

All things being equal, I would prefer a Lisp-based format rather than 
JSON, yes. (My involvement with that approach goes back 25 years: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Design_Interchange_Format )

But EDN + this convention would be something only my software would 
support, and anyone I could convince. JSON-LD is a fairly simple standard, 
already has a good and growing level of support, and because it is "just 
JSON" can be used directly by a lot of software without any awareness of 
the LD aspect.

Everything is a compromise. Pro's and con's all around.


On Sunday, June 1, 2014 12:04:50 AM UTC-7, Jozef Wagner wrote:
>
> How about format which can represent either graph or structure, depending 
> on users needs? I would argue that EDN is more suitable for linked data 
> than JSON is. Its support for identifiers and tagged elements allows for 
> pretty straightforward serialization of linked data. See 
> https://gist.github.com/wagjo/d6419a289a64c503010c 
> 
>  
> for one possible approach.
>
> Jozef
>
> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 2:18:00 AM UTC+2, Patrick Logan wrote:
>>
>> Now *that* is a pretty reasonable comparison. I would quibble here and 
>> there: I don't find JSON-LD as heavy-weight as you; the benefit of 
>> universal identifiers is an advantage in the domains I work in; and the 
>> whole graph vs. struct debate... it's a lot easier to represent a struct as 
>> a simple graph than it is to represent a graph as "structs + conventions", 
>> etc. But those are all needs-based trade-offs. The comparison is fair. 
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC-7, Jozef Wagner wrote:
>>>
>>> Well the suggestion to consider JSON-LD was really out of place. 
>>> Compared to JSON-LD, EDN belongs to the category of lightweight, schemaless 
>>> and streaming friendly data serialization formats. JSON-LD is closer to 
>>> e.g. Turtle or RDF/XML. It serves a different purpose and has different 
>>> goals than EDN.
>>>
>>> JSON-LD is a representation of labeled, directed graph of nodes [1]. The 
>>> smallest thing you can represent in it is a graph of nodes. You may make 
>>> analogy between IRI [2] node and EDN map, but note that in JSON-LD, every 
>>> property must be a valid IRI.
>>>
>>> Besides other IRI nodes as a property values, JSON-LD supports integers, 
>>> floats, strings, booleans and custom types through typed values, which is 
>>> something like edn tagged elements but can be only applied to string 
>>> values. 
>>>
>>> JSON-LD has no built in support for nils and characters, and no support 
>>> for random-access vectors. JSON-LD has a concept of unordered and 
>>> ordered collections (which is an improvement compared to RDF [3]), which 
>>> corresponds to EDN set and list types.
>>>
>>> While the motivation behind JSON-LD is to be a simple Microdata/RDFa 
>>> alternative for web services, over engineered technologies lurks underneath 
>>> and they sometimes leak through the JSON-LD facade. I'm pessimistic that it 
>>> will slip (again) into unnecessary complex ontologies and rigid schemas no 
>>> one wants to use.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#data-model-overview
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#dfn-iri
>>> [3] see section 'Decision 3' at 
>>> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/ 
>>>
>>> Jozef
>>>
>>> On Saturday, May 31, 2014 5:32:55 PM UTC+2, Patrick Logan wrote:

 Brilliant analysis. 
>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [ANN] JSON/CLJ/EDN comparison table

[Jozef Wagner]

How about format which can represent either graph or structure, depending 
on users needs? I would argue that EDN is more suitable for linked data 
than JSON is. Its support for identifiers and tagged elements allows for 
pretty straightforward serialization of linked data. 
See https://gist.github.com/wagjo/d6419a289a64c503010c for one possible 
approach.

Jozef

On Sunday, June 1, 2014 2:18:00 AM UTC+2, Patrick Logan wrote:
>
> Now *that* is a pretty reasonable comparison. I would quibble here and 
> there: I don't find JSON-LD as heavy-weight as you; the benefit of 
> universal identifiers is an advantage in the domains I work in; and the 
> whole graph vs. struct debate... it's a lot easier to represent a struct as 
> a simple graph than it is to represent a graph as "structs + conventions", 
> etc. But those are all needs-based trade-offs. The comparison is fair. 
>
>
> On Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC-7, Jozef Wagner wrote:
>>
>> Well the suggestion to consider JSON-LD was really out of place. Compared 
>> to JSON-LD, EDN belongs to the category of lightweight, schemaless and 
>> streaming friendly data serialization formats. JSON-LD is closer to e.g. 
>> Turtle or RDF/XML. It serves a different purpose and has different goals 
>> than EDN.
>>
>> JSON-LD is a representation of labeled, directed graph of nodes [1]. The 
>> smallest thing you can represent in it is a graph of nodes. You may make 
>> analogy between IRI [2] node and EDN map, but note that in JSON-LD, every 
>> property must be a valid IRI.
>>
>> Besides other IRI nodes as a property values, JSON-LD supports integers, 
>> floats, strings, booleans and custom types through typed values, which is 
>> something like edn tagged elements but can be only applied to string 
>> values. 
>>
>> JSON-LD has no built in support for nils and characters, and no support 
>> for random-access vectors. JSON-LD has a concept of unordered and 
>> ordered collections (which is an improvement compared to RDF [3]), which 
>> corresponds to EDN set and list types.
>>
>> While the motivation behind JSON-LD is to be a simple Microdata/RDFa 
>> alternative for web services, over engineered technologies lurks underneath 
>> and they sometimes leak through the JSON-LD facade. I'm pessimistic that it 
>> will slip (again) into unnecessary complex ontologies and rigid schemas no 
>> one wants to use.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#data-model-overview
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#dfn-iri
>> [3] see section 'Decision 3' at 
>> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/ 
>>
>> Jozef
>>
>> On Saturday, May 31, 2014 5:32:55 PM UTC+2, Patrick Logan wrote:
>>>
>>> Brilliant analysis. 
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [ANN] JSON/CLJ/EDN comparison table

[Patrick Logan]

Now *that* is a pretty reasonable comparison. I would quibble here and 
there: I don't find JSON-LD as heavy-weight as you; the benefit of 
universal identifiers is an advantage in the domains I work in; and the 
whole graph vs. struct debate... it's a lot easier to represent a struct as 
a simple graph than it is to represent a graph as "structs + conventions", 
etc. But those are all needs-based trade-offs. The comparison is fair. 


On Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC-7, Jozef Wagner wrote:
>
> Well the suggestion to consider JSON-LD was really out of place. Compared 
> to JSON-LD, EDN belongs to the category of lightweight, schemaless and 
> streaming friendly data serialization formats. JSON-LD is closer to e.g. 
> Turtle or RDF/XML. It serves a different purpose and has different goals 
> than EDN.
>
> JSON-LD is a representation of labeled, directed graph of nodes [1]. The 
> smallest thing you can represent in it is a graph of nodes. You may make 
> analogy between IRI [2] node and EDN map, but note that in JSON-LD, every 
> property must be a valid IRI.
>
> Besides other IRI nodes as a property values, JSON-LD supports integers, 
> floats, strings, booleans and custom types through typed values, which is 
> something like edn tagged elements but can be only applied to string 
> values. 
>
> JSON-LD has no built in support for nils and characters, and no support 
> for random-access vectors. JSON-LD has a concept of unordered and ordered 
> collections (which is an improvement compared to RDF [3]), which 
> corresponds to EDN set and list types.
>
> While the motivation behind JSON-LD is to be a simple Microdata/RDFa 
> alternative for web services, over engineered technologies lurks underneath 
> and they sometimes leak through the JSON-LD facade. I'm pessimistic that it 
> will slip (again) into unnecessary complex ontologies and rigid schemas no 
> one wants to use.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#data-model-overview
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#dfn-iri
> [3] see section 'Decision 3' at 
> http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/ 
>
> Jozef
>
> On Saturday, May 31, 2014 5:32:55 PM UTC+2, Patrick Logan wrote:
>>
>> Brilliant analysis. 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [ANN] JSON/CLJ/EDN comparison table

[Jozef Wagner]

Well the suggestion to consider JSON-LD was really out of place. Compared 
to JSON-LD, EDN belongs to the category of lightweight, schemaless and 
streaming friendly data serialization formats. JSON-LD is closer to e.g. 
Turtle or RDF/XML. It serves a different purpose and has different goals 
than EDN.

JSON-LD is a representation of labeled, directed graph of nodes [1]. The 
smallest thing you can represent in it is a graph of nodes. You may make 
analogy between IRI [2] node and EDN map, but note that in JSON-LD, every 
property must be a valid IRI.

Besides other IRI nodes as a property values, JSON-LD supports integers, 
floats, strings, booleans and custom types through typed values, which is 
something like edn tagged elements but can be only applied to string 
values. 

JSON-LD has no built in support for nils and characters, and no support for 
random-access vectors. JSON-LD has a concept of unordered and ordered 
collections (which is an improvement compared to RDF [3]), which 
corresponds to EDN set and list types.

While the motivation behind JSON-LD is to be a simple Microdata/RDFa 
alternative for web services, over engineered technologies lurks underneath 
and they sometimes leak through the JSON-LD facade. I'm pessimistic that it 
will slip (again) into unnecessary complex ontologies and rigid schemas no 
one wants to use.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#data-model-overview
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/#dfn-iri
[3] see section 'Decision 3' at 
http://manu.sporny.org/2014/json-ld-origins-2/ 

Jozef

On Saturday, May 31, 2014 5:32:55 PM UTC+2, Patrick Logan wrote:
>
> Brilliant analysis. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [ANN] JSON/CLJ/EDN comparison table

[Patrick Logan]

Brilliant analysis. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [ANN] JSON/CLJ/EDN comparison table

[Jozef Wagner]

JSON-LD is an XML stack in JSON clothes, chained to the rusty bandwagon
called Semantic Web. For me, it is a step backwards.

Jozef


On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Patrick Logan 
wrote:

> Jozef,
>
> You might be interested in the JSON-LD w3c standard which defines
> representations for most of the items in your table using JSON. Primarily
> missing are "discards" and direct ties to clojure/script functions and
> macros.
>
> JSON-LD has several implementations, a test suite, and support of search
> engines, and other systems, from google, microsoft, yahoo, etc. For
> example, they provide JSON-LD examples of all the semi-structured data on
> http://schema.org/docs/full.html along with a standard script tag for
> including that data within HTML.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/
> http://json-ld.org/
>
>
> On Friday, May 30, 2014 5:25:05 AM UTC-7, Jozef Wagner wrote:
>>
>> I've put together a table comparing JSON, EDN and CLJ formats based on
>> their specs [1]. Pull requests are welcome.
>>
>> Jozef
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/wagjo/serialization-formats
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Clojure" group.
> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with
> your first post.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Clojure" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [ANN] JSON/CLJ/EDN comparison table

[Patrick Logan]

Jozef,

You might be interested in the JSON-LD w3c standard which defines 
representations for most of the items in your table using JSON. Primarily 
missing are "discards" and direct ties to clojure/script functions and 
macros. 

JSON-LD has several implementations, a test suite, and support of search 
engines, and other systems, from google, microsoft, yahoo, etc. For 
example, they provide JSON-LD examples of all the semi-structured data 
on http://schema.org/docs/full.html along with a standard script tag for 
including that data within HTML.

http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/
http://json-ld.org/


On Friday, May 30, 2014 5:25:05 AM UTC-7, Jozef Wagner wrote:
>
> I've put together a table comparing JSON, EDN and CLJ formats based on 
> their specs [1]. Pull requests are welcome.
>
> Jozef
>
> [1] https://github.com/wagjo/serialization-formats
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[ANN] JSON/CLJ/EDN comparison table

[Jozef Wagner]

I've put together a table comparing JSON, EDN and CLJ formats based on 
their specs [1]. Pull requests are welcome.

Jozef

[1] https://github.com/wagjo/serialization-formats

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.