- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2011 15:53:13 -0400
- To: "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 09/28/2011 11:27 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> In fact, my internal representation is what you suggest. The
> rationale for the existing rep is that it is much shorter, otherwise
> a given type would need to be specified once for each property.
Exactly - we did it this way so that authors wouldn't have to author
huge chunks of type coercion sections in their markup. Compare this:
{
"xsd:integer": ["age", "pets", "cars", "children", "siblings"]
}
vs. this:
{
"age": "xsd:integer",
"pets": "xsd:integer",
"cars": "xsd:integer",
"children": "xsd:integer",
"siblings": "xsd:integer"
}
Clearly, the first one is more compact and easier to author.
The spec started off doing it the way you suggested, Markus. It got old
quickly when authoring JSON-LD week after week. As Gregg mentioned, the
internal guts of a JSON-LD parser will end up using what you suggest
internally, but we believe the top one is easier for authors and less
bandwidth intensive.
-- 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 19:53:49 UTC