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

Re: JSON-LD spec split preview

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 16:44:41 -0400
Message-ID: <4E9B4239.8000305@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 10/16/2011 05:57 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Without going into the details of the documents: why did you keep the
> normalization part in the JSON-LD API spec? I would think that the
> whole section on normalization should be removed, or simply add a
> reference to the third document...

Two reasons (only the second one is valid):

1) I didn't have the time yesterday to re-write the normalization
    section in the JSON-LD API spec and wanted to make sure to take the
    time to do it correctly.
2) I'm unsure that the RDF Graph Normalization spec will be
    readable if we make it generic to RDF.
    We may decide that we want to outline /exactly/ what a JSON-LD
    processor should do instead of leaving it up to implementers to
    connect the dots between the generic processing rules in the
    RDF Graph Normalization spec and the specific things they have
    to do in their implementation.

I agree that almost all of the section on normalization in the JSON-LD 
API spec should be removed. I also agree that it should normatively 
point to an external graph normalization specification. It's the details 
of how this is done of which I'm unsure of at the moment.

So, the intent is to do what you want, Ivan - but we're still working 
out the details on how to do that in practice.

> Also, though this has nothing to do with the split itself. The
> document contains markup examples: RDFa, Microformats and Microdata.
> I think it would be important to have a separate section on RDF in
> general, too.

A separate section on RDF in which spec?

We discussed this before re: mentioning RDF in the JSON-LD Syntax 
document - and there were people that were hostile to doing that.

However, now that we have 3 specs, maybe the RDF API should say 
something about RDF? Although, if I'm reading between the lines 
correctly, you want the JSON-LD Syntax document to say something about 
RDF? That may be difficult based on how strongly some of the other folks 
in this group feel about hiding as much RDF from JSON-LD authors as 
possible.

If you want to include a separate section on RDF - what would you want 
to say in that section, Ivan?

> The core spec does refer to RDF, but only sporadically
> because the spec is not defined in RDF terms, the JSON-LD->RDF
> algorithm is spelled out, but there is no word on what the general
> approach is to put RDF into JSON-LD. Although we all think that this
> is trivial (and it is), spelling it out for newcomers may be
> important.

Do you mean putting TURTLE into JSON-LD, or N3/N-Triples into JSON-LD? 
What do you mean by "put RDF in JSON-LD"?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Standardizing Payment Links - Why Online Tipping has Failed
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/payment-links/
Received on Sunday, 16 October 2011 20:45:11 GMT

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