W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2019

Re: Slides for Berlin Data Workshop

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 13:07:57 -0800
Message-Id: <B6A5F166-8DC5-4D1B-A11A-5E143F5A6CD6@greggkellogg.net>
Cc: W3C JSON-LD Working Group <public-json-ld-wg@w3.org>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@univ-lyon1.fr>
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 7:56 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@univ-lyon1.fr> wrote:
> 
> Dear Gregg,
> 
> this is very nice.
> 
> Slide 5, you might want to mark your JSON-LD example as "not working yet' (AFAIK, the @univar type is not part of the standard, right?)

Thanks, yes, it’s totally hypothetical; it may not be sufficient, e.g., for values of `@id`.

> Also, a lot of people are allergic to blank nodes (and some of them even have quite valid arguments...). Proposing to put *more* blank nodes as soon as slide 2 might antagonize those people, who may become less receptive to the remaining of the presentation. Maybe it would be a good idea to forestall this, with a slide between 1 and 2, or may be just an oral warnin, in the line of:
> 
> " I know that blank nodes can be painful to cope with, but there are solutions: skolemization, correctly defining their scope, etc... Under this premise, I don't consider blank nodes to be taboo.”

Good point; IMHO, the probably isn’t so much with blank nodes as explicit blank node identifiers (_:bn001). Blank nodes are simply nodes in a graph without a name. The examples don’t actually use blank node identifiers, so “blank nodes” is probably more accurate anyway. In fact, most use in schema.org of Microdata or JSON-LD is without explicit node names.

Gregg

> best
> 
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 23:51, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net>> wrote:
> The format for the Berlin Data Workshop [1] remains unclear, but I’ve prepared just a couple of slides to describe one way in which Anonymous Named Graphs in JSON-LD could support the property graph use case.
> 
> > https://json-ld.org/presentations/JSON-LD-Support-for-Property-Graphs/ <https://json-ld.org/presentations/JSON-LD-Support-for-Property-Graphs/> <https://json-ld.org/presentations/JSON-LD-Support-for-Property-Graphs/ <https://json-ld.org/presentations/JSON-LD-Support-for-Property-Graphs/>>
> 
> 
> There’s a short overview of new things in JSON-LD 1.1, and as a bonus, a sketch of how Notation3 reasoning might look in JSON-LD. (Hint, we really only need to invent a way to describe universal variables at the syntax level; reasoning should be universal based on obvious projections from Notation 3. The required extensions to RDF Datasets and better description of reasoning semantics are work to be done elsewhere).
> 
> Gregg Kellogg
> gregg@greggkellogg.net <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net>
> 
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/schedule.html <https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/schedule.html>
> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2019 21:08:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 24 February 2019 21:08:22 UTC