- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:14:54 -0400
- To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
A personal, non-official review of JSON-LD by Zhe Wu of Oracle: > Hi All, > > As I have got quite a few deadlines coming, I was not able to find enough time to > perform a thorough review. However, I did manage to read through the > Syntax document twice and here are some comments. Note these comments > only represent my personal opinion. > > - Overall, the document is very well written and I can see that the authors have > put a lot of thought into it. > > - I like very much the design goals of achieving simplicity, zero edits, and one pass parsing. > (Compatibility is a given I guess.) > > There is a Note before 2.2.2. We might want to use stronger language to mandate > that context definition to be at the top. If we believe it is a good thing to do, why not make > it a requirement? > > - Relationship between this document and RDF. > The first reference to RDF is in Appendix A. I assume it is intentional. The first reference to "TRIPLE" > is in Section 3.2. After reading through the document, my understanding is that the primary goal of the document > is to define some convenient syntax so that RDF triples (semantics) can be extracted from JSON objects. > (I must confess I am biased because I have been working on RDF for quite a while :) ) > However if this is indeed the case, then RDF concept should be properly introduced much earlier in the document. > > - As much as I love the "zero edits" goal/rationale, I don't think this document truly makes it possible. > For example, we need to identifying different subjects using different @id values. > > As another example, when multiple vocabularies are referenced, it seems that the compact prefix:suffix > notation is the way to go. This requires not only specifying a context, but also touching the data. > (See the example in 4.1) > > Referring to multiple vocabularies is quite typical in my opinion. After all, we want to encourage users to > reuse well defined terms/concepts defined in FAOF, DC, GoodRelations, SIOC, SNOMED, etc. > > - Is it possible to consolidate > "@value", "@type", "@language" with their counterparts defined in RDF-JSON (RDF 1.1 JSON Serialization)? > > > Some very minor editorial comments. > > In 2.2.1 > These Linked Data terms are typically collected in a context document that would look something like this: > ==> > These Linked Data terms are typically collected in a context document that would look something > as follows. Assume this context document can be retrieved at http://json-ld.org/contexts/person. > > Without the above assumption, it is hard to see how that person URI gets related to that example. > > In 4.13 > The second example seems to be missing a few commas in the context definition. > > Thanks, > > Zhe -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarm Website for Developers Launched http://digitalbazaar.com/2012/02/22/new-payswarm-alpha/
Received on Saturday, 7 April 2012 01:15:25 UTC