Intent to close ISSUE-253 / was: Treat reverse term definitions more like regular definitions (ISSUE-253)

According to the resolutions made in today's JSON-LD telecon, I updated the
spec [1] to treat reverse term definitions more like regular definitions.

Unless I hear objections, I will therefore close ISSUE-253 [2] in 24 hours.


[1]
https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/commit/abdaf0954ad3310ceecb989037fd2c
a5253a0e88
[2] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/253


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler





On Sunday, June 09, 2013 6:15 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> There's a inconsistency in the definition of reverse properties in the
> current version of the spec. This has been discussed in ISSUE-253 [1].
> 
> I had a look at the algorithms to check what would be necessary to fix
> this.
> Fortunately, only very minor details would have to be changed to fix
> this.
> Thus I would like to make two proposals.
> 
> PROPOSAL 1: Allow "@container": "@set" for reverse properties
> 
> The required spec changes are:
>  - Update grammar
>  - Compaction algorithm step 7.2.2.1.1 would need to take the
> property's
> container into consideration
>  - Create Term Definition algorithm step 10.5 would also need to allow
> @set
> 
> 
> PROPOSAL 2: Remove the @type restriction for reverse properties. This
> also
> means that a reverse property won't be implicitly type-coerced to @id
> anymore.
> 
> The required spec changes are:
>  - Update grammar
>  - Create Term Definition algorithm step 10.1 would need to allow @type
>  - Create Term Definition algorithm step 10.4 would need to be modified
> to
> handle @type. Since this duplicates step 15 we should move step 15
> before
> step 10 and remove 10.4.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure but I think since the changes are so minimal and this
> fixes an
> inconsistency, we can treat it as a minor bugfix without having to go
> through another LC but I leave it to the experts to judge this.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Markus
> 
> [1] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/253
> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 16:41:02 UTC