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

Re: Are @subject and @iri redundant?

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:40:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CADjV5jc93ura7qSAGppzH_AEOWUbmh7Mtb_cgt-gYp2zprCxuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Cc: "public-linked-json@w3.org JSON" <public-linked-json@w3.org>

Did you address this:

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote:
> In the spec, @subject is used to denote the subject of an item, and @iri is used to denote a value which is an IRI. However, from chaining, the distinction seems to go away. For example, consider the following two graphs:
> {
>        "@subject":     "http://greggkellogg.net/foaf#me",
>        "foaf:homepage":        { "@iri": "http://greggkellogg.net/" }
> }
> {
>        "@subject":     "http://greggkellogg.net/foaf#me",
>        "foaf:homepage":        {
>                "@subject": "http://greggkellogg.net/"
>        }
> }
> >From step 2.6.1 in the spec, the first use of "@subject" ("@" in that version) generates a triple in the same way that step 2.2, for "@iri", does.
> We could simplify the spec by either removing "@iri", or replacing "@subject" with "@iri". Of course, using the aliasing mechanism we've discussed, the other could continue to exist as semantic sugar in the default context.

I believe Gregg is correct, @subject works the same as @iri when given
in an object of a property, so @iri could be considered redundant
(albeit more understandable at least for @coerce). The question would
be if @iri is sugar for objects with *only* that key (an no other
properties), or if it works just like @subject.

Best regards,
Received on Monday, 22 August 2011 21:41:09 UTC

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