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

RE: JSON-LD spec split preview

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:28:58 +0800
To: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Cc: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'Manu Sporny'" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Message-ID: <00f801cc90c6$f30f1cc0$d92d5640$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
I like the way the spec was split, the only thing I could think of is the
question of whether we really need the sections on Expansion/Compaction and
especially Framing in the syntax spec. Perhaps that should be moved over to
the API spec.

To further improve the spec I would also like to suggest to move the Lists
section from Advanced Concepts to Basic Concepts and merge External Contexts
with The Concept. Lists are a fundamental data structure and we support it
in a quite elegant way. Regarding the context I expect that the vast
majority of developers will use external contexts so we shouldn't hide that
feature under Advanced Concepts.


> 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.

I think the Normalization section that is currently in the syntax spec
should also better be moved to the API doc. The API doc can then contain a
normative reference to the normalization spec. This would make the syntax
and normalization spec independent of the other specs. Just the API spec
would then depend on the other two which I think makes sense as we might
need more time to create a useful API.



> Few typical RDF examples, say in NTriples, and how they are translated
> into JSON-LD. Nothing complicated: simple triples, some examples with
> literals and datatypes, maybe some nested examples with blank nodes
> around. Also, if any, we should list those aspects of RDF that cannot
> be encoded in JSON-LD (I am not sure there is any, though.)

+1 think that would make the spec more complete



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler




Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 14:29:40 GMT

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