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

Re: Review: JSON-LD Syntax

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:54:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+OuRR9u--M+wdBMZt2wfaJaQnOAa4xXBXyR2_cm0HnSVu6ngA@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Andy Seaborne <
andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> wrote:

> I agree with the intention of of making it accessible to the typical
> JSON application developer, but a narrative without clearly identified
> definitions means that it is difficult to look into the document to
> check specific details.  It is also easily inconsistent as it is not
> clear when differentiating text is being descriptive or definitional.
> Example below.
>
> I suggest keeping the syntax doc as-is and a separate formal-only
> document (or a separate top level section) for the times when arguing
> over details matters.  Maybe this is a a proper appendix A but I think
> this is more EBNF; it would not be an appendix.
>

I concur with Andy: the document would benefit from a more spec'y part,
that would be the normative reference.

I forgot to mention that in the comment I just sent, but by reading annex A
(guidelines), I thought that JSON-Schema [1] could be a nice way to
formalize that?

  pa

[1] http://json-schema.org/
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:55:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT