- 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