Re: Agenda: JSON-LD Telecon - Tuesday, October 23th 2012

On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:19 AM, François Daoust <francois@joshfire.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> Agenda
>> 
>> 1. ISSUE-168: JSON-LD Syntax document MUST utilize the RDF definitions
>>   * https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/168

I'm -0 on this; I'll go along with it if the direction of the RDF WG is to go in this direction, otherwise the work we're already doing to align the concepts is adequate. Restricting properties from being blank node identifiers is probably a good idea, particularly from a conformance point of view.

>> 2. ISSUE-156: Compact API first expands without provided context
>>   * https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/156

Add a separate context as an option to allow use during the expansion phase too.

>> 3. ISSUE-162: Base IRI used to expand @type?
>>   * https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/162

+0, if properties aren't expanded from the document base, then I don't think @type should be either.

>> 4. ISSUE-159: Add specifying @language to expanded form
>>   * https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/159

+1

> Note I also created ISSUE-166 to propose a Conformance section and
> ensure consistency in the use of normative language throughout the
> spec:
> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/166
> This is not entirely unrelated to the other issues at stake, e.g.
> because of its possible consequences on section 3.1 JSON-LD Data Model

+1, a JSON-LD document MUST conform to the grammar section in appendix A to be a valid JSON-LD document. We could also say something about processors passing the test suite. Francois' text is great.

Gregg

> Francois.
> 
>> 
>> -- 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 Monday, 22 October 2012 15:26:03 UTC