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

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

From: glenn mcdonald <glenn@furia.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:43:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHNbrUuqdBs17WYPW3fa4RxH5L8CKOoeBaB+o+uw-UwW1X9JfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Cc: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Bradley Allen <bradley.p.allen@gmail.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
> 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?

This is fine data, but it's not a Linked Data graph. That is, it's not
linked (can't refer to the address, city or region (or either type) as
nodes), and it's a tree rather than a graph. Are we trying to magically
transform JSON trees into graphs, or are we trying to describe how people
with graphs should publish them in JSON? Or something else?

Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2011 16:49:42 UTC

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