Re 2: comments on the json-ld document

Gregg,

looking at the document again, I realized that the issue below should not be part of a separate thread...

On Aug 30, 2011, at 20:07 , Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> 
>> ------
>> 
>> Reading 3.11, I do not understand it. What is the role of @subject in the outer object in the first example? 
> 
> This is certainly awkward, as has been noted by others. A key is necessary to begin the expansion of it's values. Note that in Manu's proposed change, the array of objects could be treated as multiple subjects to apply to the (nonexistent) key/values at the same level as the @subject definition. Note that we've also considered collapsing @subject and @iri (into just @iri, I would hope), which wouldn't help in this particular case, but it is consistent with the use of @iri to describe a single object.

I just realized that this is independent of the whole framing issue. I guess the problem is that if one says

[
  {...},
  {...},
  {...},
]

then there is no way of defining a @context to be valid for all structures within the array. Hence this awkard usage of @subject.

One way I see is to make this issue very explicit. Have a keywords which says "@node". What this means is that its value (or array of values) define node(s) in the graph. And making it clear that this can be used to apply the same @context to all of them. Why trying to hide this issue?

Personally, I would not collapse @iri and @subject. Subject is a node in the graph with outgoing edges, @iri denotes something very different...

My 2 cents

Ivan

----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 09:17:57 UTC