W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > June 2013

Re: Input needed from RDF group on JSON-LD skolemization

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:24:31 -0400
Message-ID: <51BB279F.5000308@dbooth.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
yes that was a point Sandro made.  I alluded to it but I did not include 
details:

 >> There was also some follow up email discussion about what 
well-known URI suffix
 >> to use, but that is probably a minor issue.

"gen-genid" would be fine with me.

David


On 06/14/2013 02:54 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> David,
>
> I understand why the current 'genid' does not work for a 100%. But I am a bit
> uneasy to tie this to json-ld. There may be, in future, other syntaxes that have
> this feature, do we want to bind them to json-ld, too? Something like
> general-genid (referring to the unofficial term of generalized RDF) or something
> like that. I realize we can loose lots of time finding the right term, but I
> think it is worth coining something that is syntax neutral. (We can even do
> something like gen-genid:-)
>
> Ivan
>
>
> David Booth wrote:
>> The JSON-LD group would like input from the rest of the RDF Working Group about
>> skolemization.
>>
>> During the last JSON-LD call
>> http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-06-11/
>> there was discussion of a proposal to require skolemization of JSON-LD blank
>> nodes, when interpreting JSON-LD as RDF, in cases where they otherwise would be
>> converted to RDF blank nodes but are used where a blank node is not allowed in
>> RDF.  (At present they are prohibited as predicates and as graph names.)
>>
>> The proposal was #1 at:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jun/0072.html
>> [[
>> 1. In RDF conversion algorithms in JSON-LD 1.0 Processing Algorithms and
>> API,
>> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-api/#rdf-conversion-algorithms
>> specify that **when JSON-LD is interpreted as RDF,** (i.e., when the
>> JSON-LD model is converted to the RDF model) skolem IRIs MUST be
>> generated using the well-known URI suffix "json-ld-genid" for any
>> JSON-LD blank node that would otherwise be mapped to an RDF blank node
>> in a position where an RDF blank node is not permitted.  Conversely,
>> when RDF is serialized as JSON-LD (or when an RDF model is converted to
>> a JSON-LD model), skolem IRIs having the well-known URI suffix
>> "json-ld-genid" SHOULD be serialized as JSON-LD blank nodes.  Finally,
>> register the well-known URI suffix "json-ld-genid", in accordance with
>> RFC5785:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5785
>> BACKGROUND NOTE: The existing well-known URI suffix "genid" is for
>> converting to/from RDF blank nodes (in positions where blank nodes are
>> *permitted* in RDF), whereas "json-ld-genid" will be used for *avoiding*
>> blank nodes (in positions where they are not allowed in RDF).
>> ]]
>>
>> There was also some follow up email discussion about what  well-known URI suffix
>> to use, but that is probably a minor issue.
>>
>> Before making a decision about this proposal, the JSON-LD group would like to
>> know whether others think this proposal is reasonable and viable.  The goal is
>> to make JSON-LD function more predictably as a concrete RDF syntax.  At present,
>> such skolemization is optional, which means that a user cannot be assured of
>> obtaining legal RDF or knowing whether the otherwise-illegal triples will simply
>> be dropped.
>>
>> Please let us know your thoughts.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> David
>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 14:24:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:57 UTC