W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > April 2012

RE: A personal review of JSON-LD by Zhe Wu (of Oracle)

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 12:30:14 +0800
To: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005f01cd1477$23bbdaf0$6b3390d0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Thanks Manu for forwarding this and of course thanks Zhe for the review.

> >   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?

I think that's not possible as property order cannot always be controlled
(at least not when reusing existing JSON libraries).

> > - 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.

Probably we have to do some more work to hide that :-) I just had a
discussion over at REST discuss and JSON-LD is still associated directly RDF
and considered as to be too complex (even tough without being specific about
this complexity at all - not even after specifically asking why it is
perceived to be too complex).

> > - 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.

Maybe we should add an example showing that in some instances the zero edits
goal can be achieved!?

> > 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.

Fixed that

> > In 4.13
> >    The second example seems to be missing a few commas in the context
> definition.

Fixed that

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Saturday, 7 April 2012 04:30:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:33 UTC