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: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:35:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CADjV5jd2j1QJ=5ki8o_FTDsRAJLCziVdSpJ61iMeThWzRRASoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
Hi Manu,

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 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.

sounds good. I mainly wanted to make sure the issue hadn't been dropped. :)

Best regards,
Received on Tuesday, 23 August 2011 11:36:15 UTC

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