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

Re: Compact forms of language literals

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 09:59:16 -0400
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
CC: "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <160BCB57-7ACA-40ED-95DD-EDFC50772536@greggkellogg.net>
On Sep 7, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote:

> Hi all!
> 
> The majority of scenarios where I use RDF contain lots of
> language-tagged literals. Although there is support for this using the
> "@language + "@literal" object construct, I find that this is often
> cumbersome to use in practice. Since I believe that language-literals
> are very common in general, I'd like to suggest some options.
> 
> 
> 1. Add JSON-LD support for declaring a document-wide language
> directive (within the context or at the top level, i.e. where
> "@context" and the optional "@base" appear). This is for scenarios
> where there is one dominant language for a given resource.
> 
> This would enable us to use @language like this:
> 
>  {
>    "@context": ...,
>    "@language": "en",
>    "@subject": "http://example.org/",
>    "title": "The Example"
>  }
> 
> yielding:
> 
>  <http://example.org/> :title "The Example"@en .
> 
> Multiple values would work as well, so:
> 
>  {
>    ...,
>    "keyword": "Example", "Draft"
>  }
> 
> would yield:
> 
>  <http://example.org/> :keyword "The Example"@en, "Draft"@en .
> 
> 
> To make this play well with any plain literals (i.e. xsd:string
> literals in RDF 1.1), there are two alternatives:
> 
> A) If "@language" is given at the top level, every plain string value
> in the JSON would become language-tagged unless it's coerced (i.e. the
> property used for a string is defined in a "@coerce" directive). Plain
> literals in the RDF 1.0 sense could be coerced using an empty key (or
> perhaps "@plain") in coerce if necessary.
> 
> Of course any literal given in "expanded form" would, just like in
> RDFa, not be parsed using the top level language. I.e. it would
> naturally not have any effect on literals with an explicit "@datatype"
> (or empty "@language").

+1 great idea.

> B) If the majority of values in a document are expected to be
> non-datatyped (and non-coerced) plain literals, it would be more
> reasonable to provide a special coercion token, say "@langliteral" (or
> perhaps "@localized"), which cause values for terms declared with this
> coercion to be tagged with the top-level language. In the example
> above, that'd mean adding:
> 
>  "@coerce": {
>    "@langliteral" ["title", "keyword"]
>  }
> 
> to the context.

I could possibly see going with "@language": ["title, "keyword"], but I don't know of particularly good use cases for this, so +0.

> 2. There could also be a mechanism to make data where there are
> literals in several languages easier to use. We could define a special
> coercion called "@langmap", which expects values to be objects with
> the languages as keys. Thus this:
> 
>  {
>    "@context: {
>      ...,
>      "@coerce: {
>        "@langmap": [title]
>      },
>    },
>    "@subject": "http://example.org/",
>    "title": {"en": "The Example", "sv": "Exemplet"}
>  }
> 
> would yield:
> 
>  <http://example.org/> :title "The Example"@en, "Exemplet"@sv .
> 
> This mechanism would of course also work when there is only one
> language for the value of a property.
> 
> Multiple values per language would look like:
> 
>  {
>    ...,
>    "keyword": {"en": ["Example", "Draft"], "sv": ["Exemplet", "Utkast"]}
>  }
> 
> yielding:
> 
>  <http://example.org/> :keyword "The Example"@en, "Draft"@en,
> "Exemplet"@sv, "Utkast"@sv .
> 
> 
> (Of course I think that the current expanded form is necessary at
> times as well. But the suggestions I present here are to facilitate a
> compact form, similar to the existing "@coerce" feature; both to be
> used for simplifying data into a more JSON-"native" form. I have come
> across needs for both of these forms when exposing data in web
> services aimed for non-RDF-savvy developers (and e.g. when creating
> JSON from RDF to index in ElasticSearch).)

-1, too complicated.

> If I had to pick one, I'd say #2 is more versatile. But I've found #1
> very desirable to get the simplest kind of JSON out (in web services).
> In any case, this issue is important for me.
> 
> Best regards,
> Niklas
> 
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 13:59:52 UTC

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