Re: JSON-LD grammar

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Markus Lanthaler
<markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 8:33 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin 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.
>
> I considered JSON-Schema but as you say it's not standardized yet and thus
> probably inappropriate.


If it still has some adoption, it could still be an informative section...


> Furthermore, and that's the real deal-breaker, it
> doesn't allow to express things such as, a JSON object which has *either* a
> @language *or* a @type member (both are allowed but not at the same time).
>

I think it does! Attached is a partial schema, which handles the cas of
literals with either @language or @type.

  pa


> Perhaps it would make sense to define the EBNF rules for JSON somewhere so
> that other specs can build on top of that by simply referencing them!?
>
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>