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

RE: an idea: @context in coercion rules ?

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:53:24 +0200
To: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00da01cd6f0a$b67b1c50$237154f0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
> I am worried about this. Of course, there may be situation where this
> might be handy. But... I am, in general, afraid of building an RDF/XML
> in JSON. What I mean is that having too much choices to express the
> same things may lead to user confusion and, ultimately, rejection.

I couldn't agree more and raised the same concern in last week's telecon.
This specific issue was

RESOLVED: Do not support embedding @contexts within a @context to re-define
the IRI that a term maps to. [1]


> My personal feeling is that we should have a feature freeze in JSON-LD
> and, rather, look at every feature and variations with eagle eyes to
> see if they are needed and, in case of doubt, remove them.

I mostly agree with this as well. The only thing I think we should really
consider is to make @container more powerful, see [2] and [3] for details
but even there I'm not sure whether this really needs to go into JSON-LD
1.0.


[1] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/144#issuecomment-7209951
[2] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/133
[3] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/134



P.S.: Sorry for my last fat-fingered mail.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 10:53:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:37 GMT