Re: JSON as JSON-LD

[ Sorry for the delay on this response. I wanted to look at the API in
detail to see how baked in this was, but just didn't have the time
(the spec is kinda opaque, but perhaps that's just me) ]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Dave Longley
<dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> What it means to be "valid JSON-LD" here is that each of the properties in
> your object have an associated IRI.

Yah, I'm realizing that now. I thought JSON-LD was further detached
from RDF than it actually was.

If the behaviour of the playground reflects the intent of the
specifications (JSON-LD or the API ... or both),  I would personally
consider it an improvement if ungrounded properties were not silently
dropped.  I would suggest presenting them using a default namespace
instead.

So for my example document;

{
 "name": "Mark",
 "city": "Ottawa"
}

the triples could be something like;

_:xxx <http://json-ld.org/ungrounded/name> "Mark";
          <http://json-ld.org/ungrounded/city> "Ottawa" .

It's a bit of a hack, but has some appeal as it makes the ambiguity
concrete; letting those of us who want to embrace it use JSON-LD,
while serving as a warning to those who don't.

Mark.

Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2012 21:01:07 UTC