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

Re: Multiple graphs syntax (ISSUE-68)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:46:13 +0100
Message-Id: <FCB47B6E-F2AF-424A-A166-613350AB72CC@w3.org>
Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:08, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

>> I am sorry, but I do not think that is really good. My use case is the
>> serialization of an RDFa content; that content very often contains
>> several graphs (e.g., there might be statements on some content the
>> author defines, and then some other statements on the enclosing HTML
>> file). The context for all these graphs are identical or, to be more
>> exact, an RDFa processor has no way to find out (or it is very
>> complicated) which context should be used for which graph. As a result,
>> possibly complex contexts (with all the namespace definitions from the
>> RDFa source) will be repeated. I think that is ugly.
> 
> What is the intended end use of this RDFa to JSON-LD conversion? You could,
> e.g., directly create an expanded document without any contexts in it.
> 
> 

It is a json serialization of RDFa. Actually, forget about RDFa. The same issue happens when you want to serialize any RDF graph. There isn't, necessarily, a "root" that one could use. If we take it seriously that json ld is (also) a serialization format for RDF, alongside, say, Turtle, then this issue arises.

Ivan


> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 18:43:54 GMT

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