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

Re: Requirements update

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:11:18 -0400
To: "David I. Lehn" <dil@lehn.org>
CC: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0915B12F-8317-4697-970F-C660771D5A67@kellogg-assoc.com>
On Aug 9, 2011, at 10:03 AM, David I. Lehn wrote:

> 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".

You're right, I think it was picked up from someplace else. We'll stick with "JSON object" or just "object" where we used associative array. I'll update the reqs and spec accordingly.

> The only
> "other literal names" are false, null, and true.

Also integer and double.

> 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."

If we add 'number', I think that will do.

>> 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"?

I think this is redundant with point 3) now. I'll just remove it.

>> 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?

I wanted to be clear that the normal data model is that of an unordered graph, and that using a JSON array does not imply an order.

The difference is for specific List support, where an array does imply order. In the requirements, this is represented in point 16). I'll work on the wording of 15).
> -dave

Thanks for the feedback,

Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 19:12:37 UTC

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