[whatwg] Was is considered to use JSON-LD instead of creating application/microdata+json?
Markus Lanthaler
markus.lanthaler at gmx.net
Wed Aug 8 02:11:31 PDT 2012
Hi all,
I just sent this e-mail in response to Michael[tm] Smith's request [1] to
register application/microdata+json to ietf-types but I think this is a
better place to discuss this... so sorry for the cross-post.
I was wondering whether it was considered to use JSON-LD [2] instead of
creating application/microdata+json. The resulting output would be more or
less the same.
For example the following application/microdata+json document:
{
"items": [
{
"id": "http://example.com/id1",
"type": [ "http://example.com/type1" ],
"properties": {
"property1": [ "value1" ],
"property2": [
{
"id": "http://example.com/id2",
"type": [
"http://example.com/type2",
"http://example.com/type3"
],
"properties": {
"property3": [ "http://example.com/value3" ]
}
}
]
}
}
]
}
Could be expressed in JSON-LD as
{
"@graph": [
{
"@id": "http://example.com/id1",
"@type": [ "http://example.com/type1" ],
"property1": [ "value1" ],
"property2": [
{
"@id": "http://example.com/id2",
"@type": [
"http://example.com/type2",
"http://example.com/type3"
],
"properties": {
"property3": [ { "@id": "http://example.com/value3" } ]
}
}
]
}
]
}
Or, by aliasing JSON-LD's keywords even as which is almost exactly the same
as the application/microdata+json counterpart:
{
"@context": {
"id": "@id",
"type": "@type",
"items": "@graph"
},
"items": [
{
"id": "http://example.com/id1",
"type": [ "http://example.com/type1" ],
"property1": [ "value1" ],
"property2": [
{
"id": "http://example.com/id2",
"type": [
"http://example.com/type2",
"http://example.com/type3"
],
"properties": {
"property3": [ { "@id": "http://example.com/value3" } ]
}
}
]
}
]
}
[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-types/current/msg01714.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-syntax/
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
More information about the whatwg
mailing list