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

Re: JSON-LD bnode canonical naming algorithm

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 07:02:15 +0000
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=4pTqyZvMEyHoo1-_NG3xT75Mr6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 30 May 2011 23:57, glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com> wrote:
>> or simply author using URIs for nodes having multiple references.
>
> +1
> The idea that there even needs to be a "bnode canonical naming algorithm"
> seems to me close to proof that blank nodes should be dropped from JSON-LD.
> And from LD, period. And from RDF...

My understanding is that one of the core values being explored on
public-linked-json is something like "accessibility of this stuff to
ordinary developers.". This includes concise, readable,
mainstream-style markup.

It might be hard to balance that with a rigid rule "whenever you
mention any thing apart from basic strings and datatypes you MUST also
always supply a full URI in RFC2396 notation".

We have a classic design tradeoff here. There are costs associated
with not identifying things unambiguously. And there are costs
associated with being forced to supply Web identifiers for every
passing mention of any object. We annoy some developers by having
verbose URIs everywhere; we annoy others by not. That suggests to me
that this is not a decision that should be made at the core spec
level, but one that ought to be left to evolving deployment practice
instead.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 07:02:43 GMT

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