- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 18:39:19 +0100
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
Hi Markus,
2011/11/6 Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>:
>> "@context": {
>> "title": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/title",
>> "description": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/description",
>> "identifier": {"http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier":
>> "xsd:string"},
>> "publisher": {"http://purl.org/dc/terms/publisher": "@iri"},
>> "created": {"http://purl.org/dc/terms/created": "xsd:dateTime"},
>> "authorList": {"http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/authorList":
>> ["@list", "@iri"]}
>> }
>>
>> I find this quite appealing.
>
>
> At a first sight it looks indeed appealing but in the end I think it's
> rather confusing - especially for newbies. A bit more verbosity won't hurt.
Is it really that confusing? We'll have to try this out with some
people to see how their developer intuitions read it. I would really
prefer this form to something more verbose if it isn't prone to
misinterpretation. (Though in any case I prefer a combined form to the
current with a separate "@coerce" section.)
> What is the definition of authorList supposed to mean? Is it a list where
> the items are IRIs? Wouldn't it be
>
> "authorList": {"http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/authorList": { "@list":
> "@iri" } }
Yes, it's supposed to mean an RDF list of IRIs given as s JSON list of
strings. I would also prefer that notation (I actually outlined it in
a comment in [1], but I never raised the issue). So count in a +1 from
me for that. As it is currently stands though, I believe the vote is
for a list of tokens. It's what's been said in the last couple of
telecons at least. (And I can accept that form given proper
documentation on how a list value for coercion indicates "flags" for
value coercion.)
Best regards,
Niklas
[1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2011Oct/0100.html
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2011 18:44:55 UTC