RE: Sloppy inference rules

On Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:19 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:


> > Honestly it sounds a bit strange to me to simply accept that there is
> a
> > fundamental problem without trying to address it - especially
> considering
> > that the problem has been known since at least 2005 (2002?).
> 
> What problem are you referring to? We know well since 2005, or maybe
> earlier, that the rules are not complete. We will fix it.

Great!


> The bnode-in-predicate and literal-in-subject issues are not problems,
> they are simply decisions to restrict the language.

Why are those restrictions there? I'm specifically talking about
bnode-in-predicate.


> We have accepted at the F2F that JSON-LD is able to do more than just
> RDF graphs and as far as the persons present at the meeting are
> concerned, it seemed to be ok for the WG members. So I don't see a big
> issue here.

OK, I didn't have that impression and also David's comment suggests that
that's not really the case.

> It is also consistent with my suggestion that JSON-LD
> state in their spec that there may be valid JSON syntax that is not
> valid JSON-LD.
> 
> There needs to be a "fix" here, but it is an easy one not a major
> rewrite.

.. but maybe there's also just a misunderstanding on my side.


Regards,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler