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

RE: Yet another serialization format?

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:01:20 +0800
To: <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <011301cc3715$0dc9c670$295d5350$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On 06/30/2011 6:09 AM Dave Longley wrote: 
> If we want to make the property "name" meaningful in the Linked Data
> world, it should be part of a vocabulary that explains what a "name"
> is. Then "name" should be mapped to a URI that resolves to that
> vocabulary. If we want to be able to refer to identifier "605980750"
> elsewhere, then it should be replaced with a URI that can be resolved
> to a graph that refers to that identifier and, likely, provides more
> information about it.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. All I suggested was to have one external document instead of mixing inline constructs (@) and external documents (context doc.) since I think that would have a lot of advantages. Among others it would also clearly address the issues outlined in the property-name scoping discussion.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 11:06:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:34 GMT