@eyeinthesky @smallcircles @evan To be clear, I think json-ld has a lot of great ideas in it, and it's the extensibility and linked data compatibility (which was a strong group requirement) story we had at the time.
"JSON-LD is bad" doesn't really capture my views. "JSON-LD turned out to be too complicated for the majority of the ecosystem to work with, particularly when we gave the view that you could ignore it, except it creates a rift of interoperability between those who ignore it and those who don't and puts a burden on the latter who are doing their best to behave well" does match my views.
There are paths out of the situation, but I'm not confident in the discourse around them right now, and hesitant about how much I want to engage with it.
@cwebber @eyeinthesky @smallcircles @evan Apart from the fact that I would prefer turtle, I am very happy that AP ‘prescribes’ json-ld. This opens the door to many of my ideas. It makes possible what would be very complicated without #RDF. It's about time that the AP developers got to grips with it! https://rdf-pub.org/#rdf