W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Requirements update

From: David I. Lehn <dil@lehn.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 13:03:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CADcbRRMm81SU-d1-c=yN0ieTv118zHgaVTwaNuUhDRuVMrbq-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote:
> We discussed the requirements [1] on the call today. I made a couple of
> small changes, but I mainly wanted to get feedback from the list on the
> specific JSON-LD markup requirements:
> All JSON constructs must have semantic meaning in a JSON-LD document:
> associative arrays, arrays, numbers, strings and other literal names to
> express semantic information.

Since the JSON spec terminology "object" is used elsewhere, it should
probably be used here too instead of "associative array".  The only
"other literal names" are false, null, and true.  I'd suggest either
just saying "literal names" (drop the "other") or just list them
explicitly.  Is the "... to express semantic information." a bit
redundant since it's listing things that have semantic meaning?

How about: "All JSON constructs must have semantic meaning in a
JSON-LD document: objects, arrays, numbers, strings and the literal
names false, null, and true."

> JSON name/value should be used to describe property-object relationships.

How about "JSON object name/value pairs should be..."

> An object is represented using JSON objects, arrays, numbers, strings and
> literal names resolve to nodes in a linked data graph.

I can't parse that.  Is there a missing "that" or "which"?

> A JSON array must not be used to imply an order to the component entities.
> A JSON-LD document should be able to express and ordered list objects.

I'm having a little trouble parsing that last one too.  There was some
discussion of potential ordered list representation and perhaps using
coerced arrays for this.  Will adding a requirement saying we can't do
that be an issue?  Or can this just be temporary and removed if we
figure out what syntax to use later?

Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 17:04:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:53:18 UTC