- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 09:10:48 +0200
- To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
On Sep 6, 2011, at 21:01 , Dave Longley wrote: [snip the preliminaries] > On 09/03/2011 12:19 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > > If what you're suggesting is to simply draw on some ideas from SPARQL to better explain framing or simplify the framing algorithm, that sounds good to me. Yes, this is what I meant, actually. The fact of making variables explicit in the data, to possibly separate the matching part from the construction part, for example, seems to be beneficial. > I'm not that familiar with SPARQL so I can't say whether or not I think bringing some of its concepts into the framing discussion would better explain it to JSON developers. JSON developers are familiar with objects and I don't think the idea of a filling a skeleton object with data is too complex of a concept for them to grasp; I'm a bit more wary about explaining framing as "graph matching on a pattern", but if people end up thinking it gets the concept across better that's fine with me. JSON-LD _is_ about graphs. It is of no use, in my view, to try to hide this fact, mainly from developers of applications. So we have graphs, ie, we can speak about graph pattern matching without a huge leap in concepts. I can imagine, b.t.w., that frame definitions (just like sparql queries) may be shared from one developer to the other, too. Ie, if one developer has more experience in thinking in terms of graphs, his/her frame definitions might be shared... All this is just a thought, of course. This has to be matched against the general requirements of frames, of course... Ivan > > -- > Dave Longley > CTO > Digital Bazaar, Inc. > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2011 07:10:54 UTC