W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

RE: JSON-LD terminology

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:33:49 +0200
To: "'Andy Seaborne'" <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <017f01cd86de$007ac540$01704fc0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
> Richard's first comment included:
> > I think that this discussion belongs onto the WG mailing list and
> > shouldn't just be buried in the issue tracker, so I'm posting the
> > message here too.
> 
> Ditto.

Sorry Andy for not sending an email to the mailing list as well.


> I received offlist email:
> 
> On 30/08/12 18:32, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>  > I've created a timestamped editor's draft for the syntax and the
>  > API spec
>  > [...]
>  > @cygri <https://github.com/cygri>, @afs <https://github.com/afs>
>  > does
>  > this address all the concerns you raised as part of this issue so
>  > that I can close it?
> 
> What are the changes within these two document that are relevant to
> this
> discussion? (And why does it now span two documents?)

The discussion was about the terminology (and the data model) we use for
JSON-LD. We updated our linked data definition [1] to use terms which are
more in line with RDF Concepts. Since these are definitions we use
throughout the specs the changes span two documents.


> I'm not sure what you're asking me about - checking
> two large docs isn't viable.

My question was if the terminology we are using in this editor's draft
addresses your concerns.
There are also diffs to the FPWD online if that helps.


> I do see (ISSUE 47 note):
> 
> """
> Note that this definition is provisional, and may be reverted to
> something closer to the original depending on community feedback.
> """
> 
> so nothing has actually been decided yet?

Well, it's still an editors draft. We, the JSON-LD CG, decided to change it
this way but wanted to get feedback from the rest of the RDF WG on this
before we actually close this issue and remove the issue marker.


> [[
> Note
> 
> JSON-LD allows properties to be BNodes, while RDF does not. When used
> as
> just JSON-LD, this is not unreasonable; it only becomes an issue (and
> could raise an exception) when transformed to RDF.
> ]]
> 
> but also:
> [[
> An edge must be labeled with an absolute IRI, within the JSON-LD
> syntax,
> this label is called a property.
> ]]
> 
> I like the note spelling out that linked data does not have to be
> JSON-LD.  Are notes going to be in the final document?

That's the plan :-)


[1]
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/spec/ED/json-ld-syntax/201208
30/index.html#linked-data



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 18:34:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC