Re: JSON-LD spec split preview

Manu,

thanks!

Without going into the details of the documents: why did you keep the normalization part in the JSON-LD API spec? I would think that the whole section on normalization should be removed, or simply add a reference to the third document...

Also, though this has nothing to do with the split itself. The document contains markup examples: RDFa, Microformats and Microdata. I think it would be important to have a separate section on RDF in general, too. The core spec does refer to RDF, but only sporadically because the spec is not defined in RDF terms, the JSON-LD->RDF algorithm is spelled out, but there is no word on what the general approach is to put RDF into JSON-LD. Although we all think that this is trivial (and it is), spelling it out for newcomers may be important. 

Ivan

On Oct 16, 2011, at 09:11 , Manu Sporny wrote:

> The first pass of the spec split is done and preview-able (temporarily) here:
> 
> http://manu.sporny.org/tmp/json-ld.org/spec/
> 
> There are three Editor's Drafts for 2011-10-16:
> 
> The JSON-LD Syntax:
> http://manu.sporny.org/tmp/json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld-syntax/20111016/
> 
> The JSON-LD API:
> http://manu.sporny.org/tmp/json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld-api/20111016/
> 
> RDF Graph Normalization:
> http://manu.sporny.org/tmp/json-ld.org/spec/ED/rdf-graph-normalization/20111016/
> 
> The work was done on a separate branch (2011-09-spec-split) and will be merged if we decide this is the direction in which the community wants to head. Detailed diff for this branch vs. the main branch is available here:
> 
> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/compare/master...2011-09-spec-split
> 
> The split is pretty clean between each of the specs modulo some language that needs to be duplicated across specifications. There is some duplication between the JSON-LD API and the RDF Graph Normalization spec (basically the normalization algorithm). We have yet to determine whether generalizing the normalization algorithm in the JSON-LD API will make it difficult to understand. However, keeping two normalization algorithms that are 90% similar in language, and which are meant to produce the same result, will be a maintainability nightmare. It seems like we'll be able to fully move the normalization algorithm into its own spec, but until we change the language and have a couple of people review it... we won't know for sure.
> 
> Take a look if you're interested. Perhaps we should put this on the Agenda for our upcoming telecon and decide to accept/reject these changes during the call. In the meantime, if you support/disapprove of this direction, but won't be able to make the call, you can always +1/-1 it via the mailing list.
> 
> -- 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/
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf