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

Re: JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2011-07-04

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:26:48 -0400
To: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <489A55B3-9DAA-42EC-A0F3-ED73737594B4@kellogg-assoc.com>
On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:45 AM, Ted Thibodeau Jr wrote:

On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:

There hasn't been much more discussion on this topic, so I propose that we update the requirements as follows:

 Linked Data is a set of documents, each containing a representation of a linked data graph.
 A linked data graph is a labeled directed graph, where nodes are subjects or objects, and edges are properties.
 A subject is any node in a linked data graph with at least one outgoing edge.
 A subject MAY be labeled with an IRI.

I think this "MAY" should be "SHOULD"... Doesn't absolutely
disallow literal (nor bnode) subjects, but discourages them.

I believe the primary reason for using MAY was to leave room for unlabeled nodes (BNodes in RDF). The concept of having unlabeled nodes in a graph is important, and using SHOULD weakens this.

In common JSON usage, consider the following:

"@subject": "http://greggkellogg.net/foaf#me",
"@type": "Person"
"home-address": {
"@type": "Address",
"city": "San Rafael",
"region": "California"

Having to specify an IRI for the "home-address" item runs against much common usage. Why should this usage be discouraged?


Otherwise, looks good!



 A property is an edge of the linked data graph.
 A property SHOULD be labeled with an IRI.
 An object is a node in a linked data graph with at least one incoming edge.
 An object MAY be labeled with an IRI.
 An IRI that is a label in a linked data graph SHOULD be dereferencable to a Linked Data document describing the labeled subject, object or property.
 A literal is an object with a label that is not an IRI

If I don't hear any negative response, I'll assume that we have consensus to update the Linked Data section [1] of the requirements accordingly.


[1] http://json-ld.org/requirements/latest/#linked-data

On Jul 10, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:

On 07/05/2011 07:24 PM, Bradley Allen wrote:
How about: "A literal is an object with a label that is not an IRI" ?

Works for me. Also note that at one point, we were thinking of
supporting graph literals in JSON-LD. There is nothing preventing us
from still doing this, but let's put that conversation off to another time.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released

A: Yes.                      http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
| Q: Are you sure?
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
Evangelism & Support         //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
                            //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
       10 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 265, Burlington MA 01803
OpenLink Blogs              http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/virtuoso/
   Universal Data Access and Virtual Database Technology Providers
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 15:27:30 UTC

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