Clarification of @set and expansion

Hi all,

I went through the resolved issues and tried to update the specs
accordingly. I wasn't 100% sure what to do with @set so I thought it might
be better to check if have consensus on this first here.

So, let me just ask a couple of questions based on a few examples. For
instance, is the following allowed?

{
  "@context": {
    ..
  }
  "test": { "@set": [ ... ] }
}

I would say yes to keep the "symmetry" with @list.


What about 

{
  "@context": {
    ..
  }
  "test": { 
    "@value": [ ... ],
    "@container": "@set"
  }
}

Is it even allowed to have an arrays as the value of @value? 


The other thing I wasn't really sure about was how expansion now works in
detail. E.g., what would be the expanded version of the following document?

{
  "@id": "id1",
  "@type": "t1",
  "term1": "v1",
  "term2": { "@value": "v2", "@type": "t2" },
  "term3": { "@value": "v3", "@language": "en" },
  "term4": 4,
  "term5": [ 50, 51 ],
}


Would it be (plus IRI expansion)

{
  "@id": "id1",
  "@type": [ "t1" ],
  "term1": [ "v1" ],
  "term2": [ { "@value": "v2", "@type": "t2" } ]
  "term3": [ { "@value": "v3", "@language": "en" } ]
  "term4": [ { "@value": "4", "@type": "xsd:integer" } ]
  "term5": [
    { "@value": "50", "@type": "xsd:integer" }
    { "@value": "51", "@type": "xsd:integer" }
  ]
}

Same question as above, can the value of @value be an array?
Shouldn't strings also be converted to the expanded form (term1 and term2)? 
Looking at the result above, I wouldn't be opposed to keep numbers as
numbers in the expanded form instead (term4 & term5) and leave that
automatic typing to normalization.


By the way, my JSON-LD paper got accepted for the WS-REST workshop at the
WWW 2012 conference. I've created a new timestamped editors draft to be able
to reference it from the paper.


Regards,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Sunday, 18 March 2012 14:09:26 UTC