- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 13:17:19 +0800
- To: <public-linked-json@w3.org>
> Maybe the problem is with the "structure" keyword option? Perhaps a > different word (eg: "container") would be more amenable? I think the question is really if we see that as being part of the data type or not. I do. > The > "@structure" discussion isn't necessarily about associating a structure > with a datatype, btw, it's about associating a structure with a > particular property, regardless of datatype. We're trying to say that > when you access property X, the nature of the structure of its objects > is Y. This is to tell you something about order-preservation or about > how to access the objects (as an array or as a single object). Whether > or not datatype coercion is also specified in the context seems to be > another matter. I understand what you mean but for me that's still defining the data type of that property. > > Another issue I could see arise is that it could be difficult to > understand > > where/if the @structure/@container was set if multiple contexts are > merged. > > So to make sure you would always end up with the same "data type" > even when > > an outer context changes you would have to add something like > "@container": > > "@none" as well. > > I didn't quite follow that, could you provide an example? Hmmm.. let me try. Assume you have a context vcard.jsonld which defines (among others): { "telephone": { "@iri": "xxx", "datatype": "xsd:string", "@container": "@set" } } and another one like employee.jsonld { "telephone": { "@iri": "xxx", "datatype": "xsd:string" } If I now use those two in a JSON-LD document { "@context": [ "vcard.jsonld", "employee.jsonld" ], "name": "Markus Lanthaler", "country": "Italy", "telephone": "123-456790", "project": "JSON-LD" } Telephone would always be an array even though I might only wanna have a single value for every employee. So I would need something like "@container": "@none" to override the container in employee.jsonld That's what I meant. I hope it's cleare now. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 05:18:03 UTC