W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > January 2012

RE: Updated Editor's Draft of JSON-LD Syntax

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:16:38 +0800
To: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'Manu Sporny'" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f301ccd9c0$7d43df10$77cb9d30$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Hi Ivan,

I agree.. that's an important concept to talk about. We have a telecon
scheduled for tomorrow at 15:00 UTC. Since Manu didn't send the agenda out
yet I would suggest we discuss it tomorrow - if you have time to join the
telecon!?



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 5:39 PM
> To: Manu Sporny
> Cc: Linked JSON
> Subject: Re: Updated Editor's Draft of JSON-LD Syntax
> 
> Manu,
> 
> I know I sound like a broken record. But the
> 
> {
>   "@id" : [
>      { ... }
>      { ... }
>    ]
> }
> 
> idiom is still not defined anywhere and it just pops up from nowhere in
> section A.2. I do not believe that the syntax and semantics in that
> example can be derived from any of the previous sections.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> On Jan 22, 2012, at 22:25 , Manu Sporny wrote:
> 
> > I spent the day today thoroughly vetting and updating the JSON-LD
> Syntax
> > specification to reflect the latest thinking by this community group
> on
> > the JSON-LD markup language.
> >
> > The following actions were taken as a result:
> >
> > * Completely de-coupled the JSON-LD Syntax document from the JSON-LD
> >  API and normalization documents.
> > * Thorough check on all spelling, grammar and links.
> > * Terminology changes
> >  * Web Vocabulary -> vocabulary
> >  * literal -> value
> >  * datatype -> type
> >  * plain literal -> string value
> >  * typed literal -> typed value
> >  * chaining -> embedding
> > * More detailed explanation of some of the JSON-LD concepts.
> > * Minor technical corrections to match teleconference/mailing list
> >  discussions
> > * Processed all 45 closed bugs and ensured that there were links to a
> >  timestamped specification section demonstrating that the resolutions
> >  were not only adopted by the group, but they resulted in a
> >  specification change.
> >
> > The latest time-stamped specification can be found here:
> >
> > http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld-syntax/20120122/
> >
> > A diff-marked copy from the previous version can be found here:
> >
> > http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld-syntax/20120122/diff-20120112.html
> >
> > This is the type of editorial review we go through before heading
> into
> > Last Call at W3C... so, the document is in /very/ good shape.
> >
> > The only glaring issues that remain are the ones surrounding @list:
> >
> > https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/44
> > https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/52
> > https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/60
> >
> > We're very, very close to feature freeze for the JSON-LD Syntax.
> >
> > -- manu
> >
> > --
> > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> > blog: PaySwarm vs. OpenTransact Shootout
> > http://manu.sporny.org/2011/web-payments-comparison/
> >
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> 
> 


Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 11:17:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:36 GMT