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

RE: Forms and principles of the JSOD-LD context

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 22:52:57 +0800
To: "'Gregg Kellogg'" <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Cc: 'Niklas Lindström' <lindstream@gmail.com>, <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00ff01cc996f$1fc4c2f0$5f4e48d0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
> > I looked at it more from a programmers perspective (and I think a lot
> of
> > people that will eventually use JSON-LD do). If consider the context
> as kind
> > of a header file where all variable declarations are made, I think it
> would
> > make sense. So you basically say: In the context (that's the
> "header") I set
> > up and declare everything that I'll then use in the main JSON-LD
> document,
> > i.e., I map terms and prefixes to IRIs and set their data type. I
> think
> > programmers won't have any problems in understanding that the context
> isn't
> > about instance data. Even more so if they use external context
> documents. On
> > the other hand, the term coercion is typically used to refer to
> implicit
> > (automatic) type conversions in programming.
> 
> Agreed, introducing more keywords will only confuse. Programmers will
> intuit meaning based on context (no pun intended). Probably the same
> reasoning goes for using @type instead of @datatype both in literals
> and to replace @coerce in the term definitions.

Yes, I think so. That's exactly the reason why proposed merging @type and
@datatype in the first place.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 15:00:23 GMT

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