- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:24:55 +0200
- To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:34 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Appendix A looks good, modulo an answer to my query about mixed types > for JSON numbers. Great. By your query about mixed types you mean the mapping to xsd:integer and xsd:double depending on the fractional part, right? > Appendix C should mention the new generalized RDF datasets, I think, > but the other changes look OK. It does: In JSON-LD properties can be IRIs or blank nodes whereas in RDF properties (predicates) have to be IRIs. This means that JSON-LD serializes *generalized RDF Datasets*. with "generalized RDF Datasets" being a link to the definition in RDF Concepts. Do you think we need to add another sentence? Could you please propose one. > Given the issues with respect to numbers in JSON, I would change > http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#dfn-number, but what to change > it to depends on just what JSON numbers are supposed to be. Certainly mixed > integers and double floats is not a numeric type in any programming language > that I am familiar with. Please don't forget that it is a serialization format and not a in-memory data model. Maybe we should make it clearer that the representation of numbers is similar to that used in most programming languages!? > Similarly, JSON strings don't really represent (just) Unicode characters, but > the distinctions here might be too obtruse for even this document. Yeah, please don't let's start about talking unpaired surrogates here. I haven't ever seen this being a problem in practice so I consider this mostly a theoretical problem. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 07:25:28 UTC