W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > May 2012

RE: JSON-LD Syntax request for FPWD via RDF WG

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 00:02:37 +0800
To: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <017e01cd3834$516b6520$f4422f60$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
(My mails don't get through to public-rdf-wg so I repost them here on

> Is there a particular reason why the RDF mapping is in the API spec
> rather than in the language spec?

The syntax spec is targeted JSON-LD authors that don't necessarily have an
RDF background. Furthermore it is not syntax but a transformation. We
bundled all algorithms in the API spec.

> Is the proposal that RDF-WG should take both the API spec and the
> language spec to REC?

Yes. The API spec is just not ready for prime time yet :-)

> At first glance, these sections look great. I notice three things
> though:
> 1. I'd prefer if the algorithms were defined in terms of standard RDF
> terminology (RDF graph, triple, IRI, etc.) rather than API interfaces
> that use quite different terminology (array of Statements, Statement,
> NamedNode, etc.)

OK, I filed an issue for that [1]

> 2. Examples would be great.

There are a couple of example in the syntax spec [2], don't know if you
already saw them.

> 3. Is it possible to serialize an RDF graph into a "pretty" JSON-LD
> document using a context? I presume the answer is "yes" and involves
> Compaction of the basic serialized output.

Yes, exactly either by compacting or by framing.

[1] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/125
[2] http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#markup-examples

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 16:03:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:53 UTC