- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:59:20 -0400
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > So which client-side data structures are those people using? Do they receive > JSON-LD and just leave them as JSON? Holger, While the current IBM implementation is useful as an existence proof, I think that for SHACL we should define an approach that aligns with W3C and industry best practices. I think the simplest approach is to define a JS language binding in which the RDF graph being validated is passed in to a JS function as a JSON-LD object. The JS function body can then access the JSON-LD object directly, or it can make use of any RDF library through usual JS facilities for loading libraries. This avoids the need for us to dictate one particular RDF library. We might also provide a mechanism for declaring a set of shared JS libraries to preload. JS developers expect to have freedom of choice of the libraries they use. -- Arthur
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 12:59:47 UTC