- From: François Daoust <francois@joshfire.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 11:40:57 +0100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Message-ID: <CAFZhi7yRUb2y0_JEbN1Kk1L1p4TxLPAnOib-TTjhrYT+ntQmYA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, As previously mentioned in this thread, I have been working on updates to the JSON-LD syntax document to clarify the grammar in particular. I'm mostly done with the updates on my side, although I haven't had time to re-read the spec from top to bottom yet, so there may still be some inconsistencies or errors here and there. The result is visible on Github for review and discussion: http://tidoust.github.com/json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/index.html (I forked the project. Obviously, the fork is not mean to be kept as a fork, it's just a way to show changes without ruining the original document) Main changes: 1. There's a new conformance section (issue #166) 2. The "basic concepts" and "advanced concepts" sections do not have normative statements that apply to JSON-LD documents anymore (except for the section about referencing external contexts) 3. I updated the "General Terminology" section to clarify that JSON terms are defined in the JSON RFC and not re-defined in JSON-LD. 4. I moved definitions of "node definition", "node reference" and "term" to the grammar so that readers can follow construct definitions. 5. I re-wrote the grammar using a more consistent vocabulary throughout, using normative keywords and references to other constructs. I introduced new constructs when needed, in particular "expanded typed value" and "expanded language-tagged string". I didn't touch normative statements on JSON-LD processors and think we should update the definition of a JSON-LD processor in the conformance section and probably remove the normative statements provided they follow from implementing the algorithms in the JSON-LD API. If I introduced normative changes to the grammar, that's unintentional and probably means I didn't get the initial grammar :). The resulting grammar is not a pleasant read in the sense that the wording is not great prose, but it's also much clearer to tell which constructs are possible and which are no. I tried to restrict the number of changes I made to the spec but that's still a fairly substantive set of updates. See Github commits for a full diff: https://github.com/tidoust/json-ld.org/commits/master Hope you like it. Francois.
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 10:41:32 UTC