W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > July 2011

Are @subject and @iri redundant?

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 21:31:28 -0400
To: "public-linked-json@w3.org JSON" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DE9BB054-1C4B-44E6-B4FA-D48EDAFE957B@kellogg-assoc.com>
In the spec, @subject is used to denote the subject of an item, and @iri is used to denote a value which is an IRI. However, from chaining, the distinction seems to go away. For example, consider the following two graphs:

{
	"@subject":	"http://greggkellogg.net/foaf#me",
	"foaf:homepage":	{ "@iri": "http://greggkellogg.net/" }
}

{
	"@subject":	"http://greggkellogg.net/foaf#me",
	"foaf:homepage":	{
		"@subject": "http://greggkellogg.net/"
	}
}

>From step 2.6.1 in the spec, the first use of "@subject" ("@" in that version) generates a triple in the same way that step 2.2, for "@iri", does.

We could simplify the spec by either removing "@iri", or replacing "@subject" with "@iri". Of course, using the aliasing mechanism we've discussed, the other could continue to exist as semantic sugar in the default context.

Gregg
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 01:32:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:30 UTC