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: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:50:54 +0800
To: "'Gregg Kellogg'" <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Cc: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009401ccda43$00f63060$02e29120$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
> I really don't see the need to have special requirements for relative
> IRIs in JSON-LD, and we risk falling out of step with other
> serialization formats, where these forms of relative IRIs are legal.

But those other serialization formats don't have the same problem we are
currently facing, i.e., they have a clear way to distinguish an IRI from a
CURIE or don't support CURIEs at all. What's the difference of requiring a
"/" or "." at the beginning of a relative IRI and to have to enclose an IRI
with "<>" or a CURIE with "[]"?


> As an advisory, we could suggest that relative IRIs start with a '.',
> or '/' to dis-ambiguate them with a potential conflict with term
> aliases, but the syntactic rules are clear, if it's a term (or prefix)
> perform the mapping, otherwise it's an IRI, either relative or
> absolute.

It's clear for us because we defined it that way. But for an author coming
across such a document it might not be clear at all and since it such a
hard-to-spot source of errors, I think we should try to avoid it in the
first place.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 02:51:32 GMT

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