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

> > What I'm saying is that that is
> > wrong IMO.
> >
> 
> Well... what is wrong? As you said, this is correct...

I think it's wrong to assume that everything that wasn't mapped to a term
and is not an absolute IRI (i.e. has a colon in it but the prefix is
undefined) is a relative IRI. That would make it impossible to mix plain old
JSON with JSON-LD without creating a large number of invalid triples.



> > We need a clear way to distinguish undefined terms from relative IRIs
> > (that's the referenced ISSUE-49).
> 
> And we, in fact, already have a mechanism. This is the usage of
> predicates with a leading '@' which do have a special meaning.

Things with a leading @ are reserved keywords in JSON-LD. I don't think we
should encourage the use of @ for everything that should be ignored. Some
people might need to put data in their JSON documents that should not be
converted to triples (something like comments)..


> So we
> may be saying the same thing, in fact. Just as '@context' does not
> generate data for the output, but simply instructs the JSON-LD to do
> something special, so would '@data' instruct the processor to do
> something special. That is what I had in my mail.

But that would make it impossible for example to translate an already
existing JSON document to a JSON-LD document if not all terms can be mapped
to a vocabulary.



> Ie: we do not need any fundamentally new feature or behaviour. We have
> it, we just have to define the exact behaviour.
> 
> Maybe we are saying the same thing...

Neither do we need a new feature in my proposal. All we need to do is to be
able to distinguish between relative IRIs and terms (I think that also good
from an author's perspective) and simply ignore unknown terms.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler