- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:01:11 -0400
- To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
- CC: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 06/15/2012 04:45 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > On Jun 15, 2012, at 03:53 , Manu Sporny wrote: >> 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. +1 - totally on board with what Ivan states above. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarm Website for Developers Launched http://digitalbazaar.com/2012/02/22/new-payswarm-alpha/
Received on Friday, 15 June 2012 14:01:57 UTC