Re: JSON and Lists

Hi Rob,

I think the proposed serialization is much better. I am wondering what the
underlying RDF / conceptual model is going to look like. IIRC the proposal
is that the above is an existing interpretation of rdf:list in JSON-LD is
that right? So we would keep rdf:list in the rdf version of the model, is
that correct?

This sounds fine to me, use of rdf:list is in my mind a little more
tenuous, as it is a very kludgey model of a list-type entity.

Regards,

Jacob


On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> The current OA model is less intuitive than it could easily be when it
> comes to the Multiplicity constructs.  For the FPWD, I think it would be
> beneficial to make them easier to understand and implement.
>
> The proposed structure for the oa:Choice is:
>
>   {
>     "@type": "oa:Choice",
>     "members": ["eg:body1", "eg:body2", "eg:body3"]
>   }
> Where the members are ordered in descending priority.
> (or "items" or other convenient name tbd)
>
> And the exact same structure for oa:List:
>
>   {
>     "@type": "oa:List",
>     "members": ["eg:target1", "eg:target2", "eg:target3]
>   }
> Where the members are ordered.
>
> This looks like something that a developer would create using JSON, when
> it needed to go into an object (which it does, given the distinction
> between List and Choice, and that the object of the hasTarget property must
> be an object) [see Issue 12]
>
>
> Conversely, the current structures expose a lot of the RDF plumbing where
> they shouldn't:
>
>   {
>    "@type": "oa:Choice",
>    "default": "eg:body1",
>    "item" : ["eg:body3", "eg:body2"]
>   }
> Where item is two separate triples, and thus the order is not
> deterministic.
>
> And worse for list:
>
>   {
>    "@type": ["oa:List", "rdf:List"],
>    "first": "eg:target1",
>    "rest": ["eg:target2", "eg:target3"],
>    "item" : [ "eg:target2", "eg:target1", "eg:target3"]
>   }
> Where, again, the order of the entries in item is not deterministic as
> they're separate triples.
>
>
> Thoughts?  Jacob, please feel free to describe your counter proposal from
> issue 1 if you'd like :)
>
>
> This is related to issues:
>   https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/1
>   https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/2
>   https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/5
>   https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/12
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Technology Collaboration Facilitator
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>