Re: partial comments on JSON-LD document

On 10/21/2012 04:47 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> By the way: Using RFC2119 keywords in Notes is nonsensical. The role
>  of a Note is to provide non-normative explanations within a 
> normative section. Putting conformance statements into a Note is 
> fundamentally wrong.

As Gregg stated, we'll pull the offending text out into the main body of
the spec.

> Or perhaps MUST in JSON-LD doesn't mean the same as MUST in other W3C
> specifications?

It means exactly the same thing as it does in other W3C specs.

> We will never know, since there is no Conformance section.

Are you requesting a conformance section?

This makes sense for language like TURTLE, but not as much for JSON-LD
since all conforming JSON documents are conforming JSON-LD documents.
JSON-LD provides a way of interpreting JSON if one wants to use it as
Linked Data or wants to convert it to and from RDF. So, while you can do
anything you can do with JSON in JSON-LD, not all of it will survive
JSON-LD Compaction/Expansion/Flattening or conversion to RDF. This is by
design as we don't want to make it impossible to transform the majority
of the existing JSON documents over to JSON-LD.

So, if you want a conformance section (which might not be a terrible
idea), what would you expect to see in it? I think we might start with
something like this:

"""
Conformance
-----------

JSON-LD outlines a set of rules that are used to interpret JSON
documents as Linked Data and transform those documents to and from RDF.
Thus, any conforming JSON document is a conforming JSON-LD document.

JSON-LD conformance checkers MAY warn authors about JSON markup that
will not survive the interpretation process, such as the use of JSON
keys that do not have a mapping in the JSON-LD Context.
"""

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Problem with RDF and Nuclear Power
http://manu.sporny.org/2012/nuclear-rdf/

Received on Sunday, 21 October 2012 22:04:35 UTC