- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 22:52:57 +0800
- To: "'Gregg Kellogg'" <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Cc: 'Niklas Lindström' <lindstream@gmail.com>, <public-linked-json@w3.org>
> > I looked at it more from a programmers perspective (and I think a lot > of > > people that will eventually use JSON-LD do). If consider the context > as kind > > of a header file where all variable declarations are made, I think it > would > > make sense. So you basically say: In the context (that's the > "header") I set > > up and declare everything that I'll then use in the main JSON-LD > document, > > i.e., I map terms and prefixes to IRIs and set their data type. I > think > > programmers won't have any problems in understanding that the context > isn't > > about instance data. Even more so if they use external context > documents. On > > the other hand, the term coercion is typically used to refer to > implicit > > (automatic) type conversions in programming. > > Agreed, introducing more keywords will only confuse. Programmers will > intuit meaning based on context (no pun intended). Probably the same > reasoning goes for using @type instead of @datatype both in literals > and to replace @coerce in the term definitions. Yes, I think so. That's exactly the reason why proposed merging @type and @datatype in the first place. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 15:00:23 UTC