- 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>
This issue was originally raised by Gregg: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2011Jul/0060.html 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