- From: Alexandre Passant <alex@seevl.net>
- Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 13:08:46 +0100
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
Hi,
I like the idea of disjoint graphs exposed in 9.2. and that's definitely useful.
Yet, I'm not convinced by the use of @ to express this.
{
"@":
[
{
"@": "http://example.org/people#john",
"a": "foaf:Person"
},
{
"@": "http://example.org/people#jane",
"a": "foaf:Person"
}
]
}
It's IMO confusing and we should come up with another term, such as
@data (and allowing override - cf my previous e-mail) for the first
one - as is not a subject per-se, but just a way to encapsulate the
others.
Also, regarding the alternative form:
[
{
"@": "http://example.org/people#john",
"a": "foaf:Person"
},
{
"@": "http://example.org/people#jane",
"a": "foaf:Person"
}
]
This one cannot accomodate context (you cannot add a @context:{}
inside the [] since it expects {} values). It may be a problem if
someone uses it and then realise that context must be added - this
requires to refactor the JSON and it will break the existing model. I
do not think it brings much compared to the first one, and IMO could
be dropped.
Alex.
NB: If these issues should be raised on github rather than the ML, let
me know. I'm also happy to contribute to some of the fixes / editing.
--
Dr. Alexandre Passant - @terraces
Founder, CEO - seevl.net - @seevl
Reinventing Music Discovery
Received on Sunday, 31 July 2011 12:09:14 UTC