Fwd: Review: JSON-LD Syntax

Can we add discussion of this to the call? This would move the appendix into the body and normatively define JSON-LD syntax in one place, including references to EBNF.

We should mark the spec with an issue before making a time-stamped version.

Gregg Kellogg
Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com<mailto:andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>>
Date: June 25, 2012 3:40:56 AM PDT
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net<mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net>>
Cc: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-rdf-wg@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Review: JSON-LD Syntax



On 25/06/12 09:40, Andy Seaborne wrote:
This is Gregg's response to to my WG comments.

So everyone in the WG can see them, I include the personal copy I was sent.

If the comments are WG comments, can we at least put the response into
W3C archives? (If nothing else, so the discussion can continue.)

-------------------------------------------
On 25/06/12 02:57, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
I've addressed these issues in the noted commits, see below.

These are official RDF Syntax review comments by Andy Seaborne
(@afs) via the RDF WG:

Major:

1/ Definitions

I agree with the intention of of making it accessible to the
typical JSON application developer, but a narrative without clearly
identified definitions means that it is difficult to look into the
document to check specific details. It is also easily inconsistent
as it is not clear when differentiating text is being descriptive
or definitional. Example below.

I suggest keeping the syntax doc as-is and a separate formal-only
document (or a separate top level section) for the times when
arguing over details matters. Maybe this is a a proper appendix A
but I think this is more EBNF; it would not be an appendix.

Problems will inevitablly come when the definitions differ. We do
have an issue (#114) regarding expressing JSON-LD in EBNF, which
should probably go in appendix A, which already contains an informal
description of JSON-LD.

That is not clear to me - I'll flag this a important WG item (and what
the WG itself can do to help).

Is the intention to have a formal definition of JSON-LD? (not EBNF -
that's just the syntax part).  It does help the descriptive part as well
- it can be looser, and concentrate on the overall concept which is the
intended style?

   Andy