- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 09:59:40 +0200
- To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:34 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 10:33 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:23 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >> A graph in JSON-LD should be a generalized RDF graph.
> > But it is not. JSON-LD has built-in lists (because JSON has arrays) -
> > mapping them to rdf:List is trivial but nevertheless they are part of
> > the data model in JSON-LD. The situation is similar for numbers and
> > booleans.
> >
> > We can't ignore the JSON in JSON-LD.
>
> I believe that somehow you are missing the idea of the "should" in my
> statement.
>
> My changes to Appendix A were to turn this "should" into reality.
In your proposal you write
JSON-LD is a serialization format for Linked Data based on JSON.
It is therefore important to distinguish between the syntax of
JSON-LD, which is defined by JSON [...] and the underlying data model.
The data model underlying JSON-LD is RDF datasets as defined in
RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax [RDF-CONCEPTS], with the
following additions: ...
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0126.html]
If it has additions, then it is not the same IMO. Do we agree on that?
I also can't really see a substantial difference from what the spec currently says:
JSON-LD is a serialization format for Linked Data based on JSON.
It is therefore important to distinguish between the syntax,
which is defined by JSON in [RFC4627], and the data model which
is an extension of the RDF data model [RDF11-CONCEPTS]. To ease
understanding for developers unfamiliar with the RDF model, the
following normative summary is provided: ...
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 08:00:15 UTC