- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 23:29:33 +0800
- To: "'Richard Cyganiak'" <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
(My mails don't get through to public-rdf-wg so feel free to repost them there) > Is there a particular reason why the RDF mapping is in the API spec > rather than in the language spec? The syntax spec is targeted JSON-LD authors that don't necessarily have an RDF background. Furthermore it is not syntax but a transformation. We bundled all algorithms in the API spec. > Is the proposal that RDF-WG should take both the API spec and the > language spec to REC? Yes. The API spec is just not ready for prime time yet :-) > At first glance, these sections look great. I notice three things > though: > > 1. I'd prefer if the algorithms were defined in terms of standard RDF > terminology (RDF graph, triple, IRI, etc.) rather than API interfaces > that use quite different terminology (array of Statements, Statement, > NamedNode, etc.) OK, I filed an issue for that [1] > 2. Examples would be great. There are a couple of example in the syntax spec [2], don't know if you already saw them. > 3. Is it possible to serialize an RDF graph into a "pretty" JSON-LD > document using a context? I presume the answer is "yes" and involves > Compaction of the basic serialized output. Yes, exactly either by compacting or by framing. [1] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/125 [2] http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/#markup-examples -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 15:30:29 UTC