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

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

Received on Friday, 15 June 2012 14:01:57 UTC