- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 15:44:21 -0400
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 09/28/2011 08:25 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > Sorry for spamming the mailing list today, but as it was quite silent here > recently I would like to use the opportunity to discuss a number of things I > came up with while I reviewed the spec. So there may be more mails coming > :-) Not at all, thank you for keeping the discussion going! > This one is about merging @type and @datatype. > I understand that in a RDF world the distinction is necessary, but in > JSON-LD we do not need to distinguish the two keywords as they can't be > misinterpreted. Interesting... I don't see any reason why we couldn't make this change. It does simplify the spec a bit... @type and @datatype do different things as far as the triples they generate are concerned... I don't know if this would confuse authors. What @type does is dependent on its context. I don't know if we really have any other attribute like it that is context-dependent (except for @context, of course). One could consider @language one of those features (if we support it in @context). > So I would like to propose to merge @datatype and @type to @type (ISSUE-31). > I think this won't cause any problems in the already implemented algorithms > and just require a change from @datatype to @type. The reason behind this is > that both, @type and @datatype, specify the "data type" of a construct, the > only difference is that the one addresses subjects while the other addresses > objects. That logic makes sense to me. +1 -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Standardizing Payment Links - Why Online Tipping has Failed http://manu.sporny.org/2011/payment-links/
Received on Saturday, 1 October 2011 19:44:49 UTC