- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:25:49 +0800
- To: <public-linked-json@w3.org>
I've created ISSUE-64 to keep track of this. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler > -----Original Message----- > From: Gregg Kellogg [mailto:gregg@kellogg-assoc.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 8:07 PM > To: Markus Lanthaler > Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org > Subject: Re: json-ld.org playground updated > > On Jan 21, 2012, at 11:55 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote: > > >> IMO, {"@literal": "foo"} means that there is no language, using > >> {"@literal": "foo", "@language": null} seems excessively verbose, > and > >> null is not needed anywhere else. The @language in the context > applies > >> to plain strings. > > > > Would that then in your opinion also mean that, e.g., all type > coercions for > > that property are ignored? I'm not a big fan of these kinds of > "magic". > > Setting it specifically to null would describe in a crystal clear way > what > > an author intends to do and everyone would IMO understand what it > means > > without reading the spec. > > I think we should make it clear that type, and language coercions > operate on plain strings only; {@literal} and {@id} are explicit object > of statements, and coercion is not needed. We should make clear that > @language and @type coercions operate only on plain string operands (or > arrays/lists of objects represented as plain strings). I don't see this > as magic at all. > > Gregg > > > -- > > Markus Lanthaler > > @markuslanthaler > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 13:26:26 UTC