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

Re: Are @subject and @iri redundant?

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 00:45:35 -0400
Message-ID: <4E53306F.3030404@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 08/22/2011 05:40 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> 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.

Hi Niklas, no haven't addressed it yet. They are effectively the same, 
having @iri and @subject allows us to simplify some of the tests in the 
normalization code, but that is a poor excuse to have to keywords that 
do effectively the same thing.

We were in the middle of working out the normalization code, so wanted 
to wait until we had a good solid first pass before merging @subject and 
@iri as we didn't want to accidentally break the normalization algorithm 
by doing so.

So, short answer is: not yet, but we hope to analyze the change right 
after we finish spec'ing the first pass of the public normalization 
algorithm.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Uber Comparison of RDFa, Microformats and Microdata
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/uber-comparison-rdfa-md-uf/
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 04:46:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:35 GMT