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

Oh OK.. Could you have a look at ISSUE-56 and check if what I proposed there
would be a viable solution for this idiom?

https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/56

IMO that would be a viable (and clean) solution for this.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 8:03 PM
> To: Markus Lanthaler
> Cc: 'Manu Sporny'; 'Linked JSON'
> Subject: 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