W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > October 2012

RE: compact-0018

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:00:27 +0200
To: "'Gregg Kellogg'" <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, "'Dave Longley'" <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301cdaf8c$0e6d0380$2b470a80$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
My implementation calculates term ranks as follows:

 


 

term1

term2


it's a term

+1

+1


@list container matches

+1

+1


{ "@value": "v1.1", "@language": "de" }

+1

-1


{ "@value": "v1.2", "@language": "de" }

+1

-1


{ "@value": "v1.3", "@language": "de" }

+1

-1


4

+1

+1


{ "@value": "v1.5", "@language": "en" }

-1

+1


{ "@value": "v1.6", "@language": "en" }

-1

+1


total (list 1)

4

2


 

 

 


 

term1

term2


it's a term

+1

+1


@list container matches

+1

+1


{ "@value": "v2.1", "@language": "en" }

-1

+1


{ "@value": "v2.2", "@language": "en" }

-1

+1


{ "@value": "v2.3", "@language": "en" }

-1

+1


4

+1

+1


{ "@value": "v2.5", "@language": "de" }

-1

+1


{ "@value": "v2.6", "@language": "de" }

-1

+1


total (list 2)

2

4

 

+1 are given to values that can be compacted, -1 to values that can't.

 

 

--

Markus Lanthaler

@markuslanthaler

 

 

 

 

From: Gregg Kellogg [mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net] 
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:47 PM
To: Dave Longley; Markus Lanthaler
Cc: Linked JSON
Subject: compact-0018

 

I think there's a problem in compact-0018 regarding finding the appropriate
terms for term1 and term2.

 

The test includes two lists, associated with an IRI shared between term1 and
term2. The difference is that term1 and no language defined, and term2 has a
language different from the default of the context ("en" vs "de").

 

The result comes down to calculating the term ranks for each value in the
list. I come up with the following calculations:

 

 


value

term1

term2


{ "@value": "v1.1", "@language": "de" },

3

0


{ "@value": "v1.2", "@language": "de" },

3

0


{ "@value": "v1.3", "@language": "de" },

3

0


4,

2

1


{ "@value": "v1.5", "@language": "en" },

1

3


{ "@value": "v1.6", "@language": "en" }

1

3


total (term1)

13

7

	
	
	


{ "@value": "v2.1", "@language": "en" },

1

3


{ "@value": "v2.2", "@language": "en" },

1

3


{ "@value": "v2.3", "@language": "en" },

1

3


4,

2

1


{ "@value": "v2.5", "@language": "de" },

3

0


{ "@value": "v2.6", "@language": "de" }

3

0


total (term2)

11

10

 

(pardon the formatting)

 

Basically, I find that term1 is selected in both cases, which results in an
illegal compaction, as a term with @container: @list can't have two list
values.

 

The playground, and presumably Markus' implementation does allocate between
term1 and term2, so it seems that there's an inconsistency.

 

I think the test would be just as valid if v1.5 were "de" and v2.5 were
"en", which would give the totals of 15 and 4 for the v1.x values and 9 and
13 for the v2.x values, which would result in the proper allocation.

 

Am I missing some detail in the algorithms?

 

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net

 
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2012 13:01:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:35 UTC