W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: JSON-LD grammar

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 08:32:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+OuRR-gNQFUX409fibB-Nx5WKzWz9=14b6rTAd2LEjAHUJWzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Markus Lanthaler

> On Monday, January 07, 2013 7:30 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> > AFAIK, W3C standard is EBNF, and I did make an attempt at an EBNF
> > grammar some time ago, but the consensus of the group was that this
> > wasn't too useful. The fact that it's JSON, and pretty much every
> > implementation will use a JSON parser and iterate of the resulting
> > objects, I still think this is probably not too useful for the purposes
> > of implementing a processor.
> Right. That's the reason why I didn't use EBNF. I wouldn't like to include
> rules to parse JSON itself, just the grammar on top of JSON but
> unfortunately there doesn't exist such a thing yet.

Wouldn't it be relevant to use JSON-Schema [1], then? I've used it in the
past and found it quite nice useful... However, it is not a finalized spec
and has not evolved in the last two years, so that may be inappropriate for
a W3 REC.


[1] http://json-schema.org/

> > However, I can see that laying out different node types, and what the
> > expected key/value pairs that can be expected. As you note, we do this
> > in prose now, but something that is more visual might be easier for
> > people to understand. For this purpose, we can probably invent our own
> > nomenclature, as long as it's consistent and light-weight. What you
> > have below is pretty easy to understand, IMO.
> That's the intent behind it. While you are implementing a JSON-LD
> processor,
> validator, linter etc. you probably quite often need to check what's
> allowed
> and what's not. Reading through prose isn't really productive and you risk
> missing some details. That's why I tried to come up with something more
> formal and condensed.
> Cheers,
> Markus
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2013 07:33:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:09 UTC