- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 11:27:24 +0800
- To: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
> They're also interested in named graph support for discribing
> information about their resources. The example they used in IRC was the
> following:
>
> According to the 1990 CIA fact book, the population of Vatican City in
> 1970 was 500 people. There's a fact
>
> :vatican :population 500; :population_date "1970"^xsd:gYear . -- using
> dbpedia vocab
You know that I would really favor to either include support for this rather
now then later if we keep @graph.
That brings me to another question. If we currently expand @graph that is
not at the object's top level, do we drop it or do we keep it in the
expanded form?
Considering what Niklas said about @set (different meaning at the object's
top level) I think we should keep it as it means something completely
different than just having an array.
So should we really expand
{ "prop": { "@graph" : [ ... ] } }
to
{ "prop": [ ... ] }
or should we keep the @graph? Please note that the situation at the
top-level is different as you could argue that you just explicitly describe
the default graph and therefore you don't loose anything.
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Friday, 6 April 2012 03:27:59 UTC