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

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

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 15:31:25 +0100
Cc: RDF Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D4CFCFC5-71EB-4B53-9C76-9B82CF07F927@cyganiak.de>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
On 24 May 2012, at 03:40, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> In order for the RDF model to support round-tripping the JSON
>>> model - it would have to support null-able subjects
>>> and it would have to support plain literal predicates.
>> Right. Why not just stick them onto the end of some standard
>> namespace?
> (super-pendantic mode unlocked) - because that an IRI, not a plain literal.

My point is: Why not define that statements using plain literal properties are expressed in RDF by turning the plain literal properties into IRI properties by appending them to some standard namespace IRI like <urn:jsonld:propertyNameHere>? This would not change anything in the JSON-LD language, and would make more of JSON-LD expressible in RDF. Assuming the namespace is reserved for this purpose, this is round-trippable too.

>> So how about: JSON-LD is a language capable of serializing any RDF
>> graph, and performing full RDF to JSON-LD to RDF round-tripping.
> Works for me, committed:
> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/commit/584dec5b3d328fdd8f8d85bc9403b256fbc83ed3#L0R2368
> and live (see Appendix B.1):
> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#rdf

This is good, thanks. I have nitpicks about what is normative and what is informative, and still would like to see a pointer to that appendix somewhere in the intro, but those are not blockers for FPWD and can be discussed later.

Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 14:32:01 UTC

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