RE: Forms and principles of the JSOD-LD context

> > 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

Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 15:00:23 UTC