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

Re: Issues with disjoint graph modelling

From: Alexandre Passant <alex@seevl.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:22:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CALF6uC=-Vvpzw6En8qV=AwRrL3DtiQ3y59uL1EK401tWXuM+3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Hi,

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> On 08/25/2011 02:11 PM, Alexandre Passant wrote:
>>>
>>> Be it "@": [] or "@subject": [], much of these forms fall out of
>>> the general processing rules, such that every call to process an
>>> entity return a value that can be used as a subject. Otherwise, we
>>> end up adding special cases, where.none are necessary.
>>
>> It was probably not clear - I'm not asking to add special cases, but
>> just found confusing the use of @ / @subject where it does not
>> define the subject of a triple. But that eventually works fine with
>> overloading (that's how we've done it in [1] with the use of @data)
>
> I know this might hurt a few brains, so apologies in advance... but we had
> considered this at one point for JSON-LD:
>
> "@subject": ["#foo", "#bar", "#baz"],
> "dc:creator": "http://example.com/people/bob"
>
> which would generate the following triples:
>
> <#foo> dc:creator <http://example.com/people/bob> .
> <#bar> dc:creator <http://example.com/people/bob> .
> <#baz> dc:creator <http://example.com/people/bob> .
>
> That's not in the spec right now and we probably won't put it in the 1.0
> spec, but have reserved the pattern if people might find it useful in the
> future.
>
> What we were really going for with "@subject" being a non-IRI value was
> supporting graph literals, like so:
>
> {
>   "@subject": { "foaf:name": "John Doe", "foaf:age": 34 },
>   "dc:created": "2011-08-28"
> }
>
> This would generate the following graph, which includes a graph literal:
>
> _:g1 {
>   _:bnode1 foaf:name "John Doe" .
>   _:bnode1 foaf:age 34 .
> }
> _:g1 dc:created "2011-08-28" .
>
>>> The second form should be allowed, but as you point out, the first
>>> form my be required to add an @context.
>>
>> It is probably good to add a warning in the spec. Something like
>> "Warning: This alternative serialisation does not allow to specify a
>> particular @context in the data file".
>
> Where would you expect this warning to go in the spec, Alexandre?


Ideally in section A.1 Disjoint Graphs, after the second example (that
is using that serialisation)

Alex.

>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Building a Better World with Web Payments
> http://manu.sporny.org/2011/better-world/
>



-- 
Dr. Alexandre Passant - @terraces
Founder, CEO - seevl.net - @seevl
Reinventing Music Discovery
Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 13:23:11 GMT

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