Re: Review: JSON-LD Syntax

On 25/06/12 09:40, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> This is Gregg's response to to my WG comments.
>
> So everyone in the WG can see them, I include the personal copy I was sent.
>
> If the comments are WG comments, can we at least put the response into
> W3C archives? (If nothing else, so the discussion can continue.)
>
> -------------------------------------------
> On 25/06/12 02:57, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> I've addressed these issues in the noted commits, see below.
>
>  > These are official RDF Syntax review comments by Andy Seaborne
>  > (@afs) via the RDF WG:
>  >
>  > Major:
>  >
>  > 1/ Definitions
>  >
>  > 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.
>
> Problems will inevitablly come when the definitions differ. We do
> have an issue (#114) regarding expressing JSON-LD in EBNF, which
> should probably go in appendix A, which already contains an informal
> description of JSON-LD.

That is not clear to me - I'll flag this a important WG item (and what 
the WG itself can do to help).

Is the intention to have a formal definition of JSON-LD? (not EBNF - 
that's just the syntax part).  It does help the descriptive part as well 
- it can be looser, and concentrate on the overall concept which is the 
intended style?

	Andy

Received on Monday, 25 June 2012 10:41:29 UTC