Re: Updated Editor's Draft of JSON-LD Syntax

Markus,

unfortunately, I have a conflicting call...

Ivan

On Jan 23, 2012, at 12:16 , Markus Lanthaler wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


----
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