Re: comments/questions on JSON-LD spec (but _not_ for the CG->WG transition!)

On Jun 15, 2012, at 03:53 , Manu Sporny wrote:

> On 06/14/2012 10:34 AM, David Wood wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2012, at 06:29, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> Comment 2: There is, of course, the general question whether it is
>>> wise to publish a FPWD with a @graph features as long as the 
>>> discussion on named graphs is still raging in the group. Maybe that
>>> section should be stripped down, for the moment, to the bare 
>>> minimum that is necessary to express a graph with several top level
>>> subjects... But that is just a thought. I know the API values are
>>> set in terms of quads but we can say, at this moment, that JSON-LD
>>> does not yet have a syntax to express the full quads, only those
>>> for a default graph...
>> Conversely (but not disagreeing), we should ensure that the JSON-LD 
>> use cases for named graphs are reflected in our decisions.
> I was hoping that what David Wood has said above is how we would
> approach the discussion around the whole '@graph'/Quads feature in JSON-LD.
> That is, I think JSON-LD proposes how we do named graphs/datasets in a
> certain way that makes sense to us (at Digital Bazaar) and us (in the
> JSON-LD CG). I think that should put pressure on the RDF WG to figure
> out the RDF Concepts around datasets and Quads. It should not put
> pressure on JSON-LD to remove a feature that's not fully baked in RDF
> Concepts yet.
> I'm going to push back on any notion that we should remove or cripple
> '@graph' because the RDF Concepts are not worked out on the feature yet.
> We don't need the RDF Concepts to be worked out for '@graph' to do
> something useful in JSON-LD. More specifically, Digital Bazaar doesn't
> need the RDF Concepts to be worked out to put the '@graph' feature to
> good use (annotating graph provenance, digital signatures on graphs,
> being able to express multiple sources of information in the same
> JSON-LD document, etc.)
> We should continue to have the hard discussion of datasets/@graph and
> Quads instead of attempting to not have that discussion due to time
> constraints by putting @graph at risk.

Ok. What I meant was for the FPWD; and maybe 'at risk' is not the right term. What I was trying to say is that, while the other parts of the syntax of JSON-LD seem to be fairly stable and, as far as I am concerned personally, are almost LC quality, I am much less sure about the way @graph is defined, and it is worth, somehow, to make that clear in the FPWD. And, in finalizing that, a harmonization of the evolution of the named graph concepts as well as the TriG syntax, may be a good way to approach that.


> -- manu
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: PaySwarm Website for Developers Launched

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
mobile: +31-641044153

Received on Friday, 15 June 2012 08:46:33 UTC