- From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:57:52 -0500
- To: Josh Mandel <Joshua.Mandel@childrens.harvard.edu>
- CC: public-linked-json@w3.org
Josh,
This is a bug that I also discovered while looking into the other issue
you brought up with @embed in your previous email. When I get a chance,
I'll fix both of them.
-Dave
On 11/23/2011 09:51 AM, Josh Mandel wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is a bug, a design decision, or the unintended
> but necessary consequence of a design decision... but I realized that
> part of what makes it difficult for me to construct useful frames is
> the behavior of am empty array frame: [].
>
> As far as I'm concerned, an empty frame ought to preserve the triples
> in the input graph. But the current behavior is more subtle: when a
> predicate has multiple URI objects, sometimes these objects are not
> preserved in the output. Here's the simplest case I can construct
> that demonstrates the issue:
>
> 1. Input asserts three URI nodes: a "looker" which canSee "spotted"
> and "forgotten". Input also re-asserts that "spotted" exists.
> 2. Frame is [].
> 3. Output loses this triple:<looker> <canSee> <forgotten>.
>
> INPUT
> {
> "@subject": [{
> "@subject": "looker",
> "canSee": [{
> "@iri": "forgotten"
> }, {
> "@iri": "spotted"
> }]
> }, {
> "@subject": "spotted"
> }]
> }
>
> FRAME
> []
>
> OUTPUT (where's "forgotten"?)
> [{
> "@subject": {
> "@iri": "looker"
> },
> "canSee": {
> "@iri": "spotted"
> }
> }, {
> "@subject": {
> "@iri": "spotted"
> }
> }]
>
> The thing that's really giving me grief is probably a downstream
> consequence of this behavior. But I figured I'd start at the root of
> the problem. Is the behavior known, understood, or intended?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Josh
>
--
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 19:58:28 UTC