W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > November 2011

RE: [json-ld.org] Are @subject and @iri redundant? (#15)

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 20:10:25 +0800
To: "'Manu Sporny'" <reply+i-1477642-03cf6838214958976e2f68a8ac53ef0de003a547-456407@reply.github.co>
Cc: "'Gregg Kellogg'" <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00ad01ccae8f$e4010450$ac030cf0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
This issue was originally raised by Gregg:


I think in this case it makes sense to keep both @subject and @iri even though @subject is just syntactic sugar. So for me it would be fine to close this issue.. let's see what Gregg thinks about it - I've CCed him.

P.S.: For me this issue is quite different from the @type/@datatype issue (#31). I wouldn't like to treat them the same way.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manu Sporny [mailto:reply+i-1477642-
> 03cf6838214958976e2f68a8ac53ef0de003a547-456407@reply.github.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:42 PM
> To: Markus Lanthaler
> Subject: Re: [json-ld.org] Are @subject and @iri redundant? (#15)
> Technically, they are redundant. However, I think that just like @type
> and @datatype, we should keep the two concepts separate to help people
> understand what is going on in the markup a bit better.
> ---
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/15#issuecomment-2912823
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 12:11:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:32 UTC