- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:16:38 +0800
- To: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'Manu Sporny'" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <00f301ccd9c0$7d43df10$77cb9d30$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Hi Ivan, I agree.. that's an important concept to talk about. We have a telecon scheduled for tomorrow at 15:00 UTC. Since Manu didn't send the agenda out yet I would suggest we discuss it tomorrow - if you have time to join the telecon!? -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler > -----Original Message----- > From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] > Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 5:39 PM > To: Manu Sporny > Cc: Linked JSON > Subject: Re: Updated Editor's Draft of JSON-LD Syntax > > Manu, > > I know I sound like a broken record. But the > > { > "@id" : [ > { ... } > { ... } > ] > } > > idiom is still not defined anywhere and it just pops up from nowhere in > section A.2. I do not believe that the syntax and semantics in that > example can be derived from any of the previous sections. > > Ivan > > On Jan 22, 2012, at 22:25 , Manu Sporny wrote: > > > I spent the day today thoroughly vetting and updating the JSON-LD > Syntax > > specification to reflect the latest thinking by this community group > on > > the JSON-LD markup language. > > > > The following actions were taken as a result: > > > > * Completely de-coupled the JSON-LD Syntax document from the JSON-LD > > API and normalization documents. > > * Thorough check on all spelling, grammar and links. > > * Terminology changes > > * Web Vocabulary -> vocabulary > > * literal -> value > > * datatype -> type > > * plain literal -> string value > > * typed literal -> typed value > > * chaining -> embedding > > * More detailed explanation of some of the JSON-LD concepts. > > * Minor technical corrections to match teleconference/mailing list > > discussions > > * Processed all 45 closed bugs and ensured that there were links to a > > timestamped specification section demonstrating that the resolutions > > were not only adopted by the group, but they resulted in a > > specification change. > > > > The latest time-stamped specification can be found here: > > > > http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld-syntax/20120122/ > > > > A diff-marked copy from the previous version can be found here: > > > > http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld-syntax/20120122/diff-20120112.html > > > > This is the type of editorial review we go through before heading > into > > Last Call at W3C... so, the document is in /very/ good shape. > > > > The only glaring issues that remain are the ones surrounding @list: > > > > https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/44 > > https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/52 > > https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/60 > > > > We're very, very close to feature freeze for the JSON-LD Syntax. > > > > -- manu > > > > -- > > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) > > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > > blog: PaySwarm vs. OpenTransact Shootout > > http://manu.sporny.org/2011/web-payments-comparison/ > > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > >
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 11:17:16 UTC