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

Re: JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2011-07-04

From: Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 16:24:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKpM4LkOmoPJz5R4QKXPq-bKrNr-pEGuPN7jn3cFdoBNAzEyKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote:
 > This is a great re-formulation of what I believe we were trying to
attempt in the original definition and in the revision from      the
telecon. As is, I don't believe that any explicit mention of unlabled
nodes is required, as it is implicit in the definition.


> Where we didn't get on the telecon, and what isn't mentioned here, is the ability to have object nodes representing scalar values such as strings, dates, times, or anything else. To re-use a term, we might define such nodes a "literals". A _literal_ might be considered to be any labeled node where the label is not an IRI. We could then leave to subsequent definitions if a literal may have a datatype or a language.

How about: "A literal is an object with a label that is not an IRI" ? - BPA

Bradley P. Allen
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2011 23:24:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:53:17 UTC