- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:40:12 -0400
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Hi Rob, The owl:sameAs solution does have the right semantics, and it has the benefit of using a standard term. But I'm afraid there may be a downside as well, and I'm copying Pat to get his take on it. Normally when you have: <http://example/foo> owl:sameAs _:b1 . in a graph, the blank node can be completely eliminated from the graph and replaced by <http://example/foo>, because the semantics of a blank node merely indicates the *existence* of a resource, but the owl:sameAs assertion gives a concrete identity <http://example/foo> to that resource. But in your case, you want to *avoid* having that blank node eliminated. Thus, there could be some risk that smart software that attempts to eliminate unnecessary nodes and assertions (such as by making the graph "lean") https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#dfn-lean may eliminate the blank node triple that the Turtle serializer would need for serializing back to the original list syntax. In other words, if the original graph said: ... _:b1 a rdf:List . _:b1 rdf:first :s1 . ... and you used owl:sameAs as above, then by owl:sameAs entailment we would have: ... _:b1 a rdf:List . <http://example/foo> a rdf:List . _:b1 rdf:first :s1 . <http://example/foo> rdf:first :s1 . ... and if that were made lean then it would become: ... <http://example/foo> a rdf:List . <http://example/foo> rdf:first :s1 . ... which would not serialize back to the original Turtle list ( :s1 ... ). David On 07/03/2013 11:15 AM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > Dear all, > > TL;DR version: I think that owl:sameAs is a great solution for the > predicate. > > Thank you for the discussion! > > The primary use case for lists with identity (and other properties, > potentially) in Open Annotation is to have an ordered workflow for > selecting the correct part of a document. For example, EPub documents > are just zip files with HTML and other resources packed inside them, so > it would be beneficial to reuse the methods for selecting the correct > segment of a resource on the web with the resources inside the EPub, but > first the file within the zip must be selected. > > Thus we would want: > > <target1> a oa:SpecificResource ; > oa:hasSelector <list1> ; > oa:hasSource <epub1> . > > <list1> a oa:List, rdf:List ; > rdf:isList (<FileSelector>, <TextSelector>) . > // Or something similar here > > <FileSelector> a idpf:EpubFileSelector ; > rdf:value "/chapter1.html" . > > <TextSelector> a oa:TextQuoteSelector ; > oa:prefix "bit before the segment" > oa:exact "The text of the annotated segment" > oa:suffix "bit after the segment" > > > The relevant part of the specification is: > http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/multiplicity.html#List > (and you'll see the long red editor's note!) > > I think that Pat's suggestion of owl:sameAs is very appropriate. It > works in the different syntaxes and has the semantics that the resources > are the same -- in the case above the blank node that has first of > <FileSelector> and the resource <list1>. > > The other options discussed were rdf:value, which is extremely fuzzy and > in JSON-LD context you couldn't assert that it always had a list as its > object if it was also used with a literal. In which case it would result > in multiple rdf:value predicates, each with one of the list items as > object. That led to discussing a new predicate, such as listItems, > listValue, isList, or similar. This would have the implication that the > blank node and the main identified resource were different resources, as > compared to the proposal of owl:sameAs which would mean they were the > same resource. > > Rob > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us > <mailto:phayes@ihmc.us>> wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:38 PM, David Booth wrote: > > > On 07/03/2013 12:07 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > >> > >> On Jul 2, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Manu Sporny wrote: > >> > >>> Thanks to Niklas for scribing. The minutes from this week's telecon > >>> are now available. > >>> > >>> http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-07-02/ > >>> > >>> Full text of the discussion follows including a link to the audio > >>> transcript: > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> > > JSON-LD Community Group Telecon Minutes for 2013-07-02 > >>> > >>> Agenda: > >>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2013Jul/0000.html > >>> > >>> > > Topics: > >>> 1. Assigning Properties to Lists 2. GSoC update 3. JSON-LD / RDF > >>> Alignment 4. Lists in the JSON and RDF data models 5. Default > >>> interpretation of JSON arrays Resolutions: 1. Create an issue in > >>> the RDF WG to formalize a way to express lists that need to be > >>> identified with a URL and annotated using properties. > >> > >> If I understand this correctly, this can be done in RDF already. For > >> example, the list [ x:a, x:b, 27 ] identified by the URI ex:thisList > >> and possessing the property x:prop with value x:value is > described by > >> this RDF: > >> > >> ex:thisList rdf:type rdf:List . ex:thisList rdf:first x:a . > >> ex:thisLIst rdf:rest _:1 . _:1 rdf:first x:b . _:1 rdf:rest _:2 > . _:2 > >> rdf:first "27"^^xsd:number . _:2 rdf:rest rdf:nil . ex:thisLIst > >> x:prop x:value . > > > > If I have understood the issue properly, the reason > > for raising this issue in the RDF working group is that this is not > > necessarily an advisable usage pattern for the RDF list > vocabulary, because such a list cannot be serialized using Turtle's > list syntax: (x:a x:b 27). > > Yes, you are right, and I confess I had never noticed this > limitation of Turtle previously. OK, let me change the RDF to the > following, keeping the list bnodes but using owl:sameAs. (You can of > course use some other property indicating equality if y'all prefer.): > > ex:thisLIst rdf:type rdf:List . > ex:thisLIst x:prop x:value . > ex:thisList owl:sameAs _:3 . > _:3 rdf:first x:a . > _:3 rdf:rest _:1 . > _:1 rdf:rest _:2 . > _:2 rdf:first "27"^^xsd:number . > _:2 rdf:rest rdf:nil . > > Or, in Turtle: > > ex:thisList rdf:type rdf:List ; > x:prop x:value ; > owl:sameAs (x:a , x:b, 27 ) . > > and you could probably omit the first triple, or even introduce your > own category of JSON-lists and say it is one of those, instead, if > that would help with triggering appropriate translations into other > formats (or to distinguish these from eg RDF lists used to encode > OWL syntax.) > > > It falls into a similar category as other uncommon uses of the > RDF List vocabulary:... > > ...no, it doesn't. See remark below. > > Pat > > > other uncommon uses of the RDF List vocabulary: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab > > [[ > > Note: RDFS does not require that there be only one first element > of a list-like structure, or even that a list-like structure have a > first element. > > ]] > > > > While not prohibited by RDF, such uncommon uses of the RDF list > vocabulary are certainly seen by some as being somewhat anti-social. > Thus, the question is whether such uses should be *encouraged*. > > > > David > > > >> > >> Pat > >> > >>> Chair: Manu Sporny Scribe: Niklas Lindström Present: Niklas > >>> Lindström, Robert Sanderson, Markus Lanthaler, Manu Sporny, David > >>> Booth, David I. Lehn, Vikash Agrawal Audio: > >>> http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-07-02/audio.ogg > >>> > >>> Niklas Lindström is scribing. > >>> > >>> Topic: Assigning Properties to Lists > >>> > >>> Markus Lanthaler: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/75 > >>> Robert Sanderson: we'd very much like to give rdf:Lists identity, > >>> so that they can be referenced from multiple graphs. Also to > >>> describe them with other properties ... in openannotation, we need > >>> lists to define a selector which determines which part is > >>> annotated ... for instance, which piece of a text is annotated, > >>> with "before" and "after" also recorded (most clients work like > >>> that) ... Futhermore, IDPF has agreed to use openannotation for > >>> all EPub books ... EPubs, being zip files with a bunch of files ... > >>> To define a selector here (take the EPub, select a file, then a > >>> part in there) ... So we don't want to reproduce every single > >>> selector mechanism. Thus, an ordered list of two selectors would > >>> be neeeded. ... We thus need to identify lists, so that we can > >>> reuse these selectors in multiple statements. ... I.e. a person > >>> wants to disagree with a specific annotation, or place being > >>> annotated. ... Furthermore, we have the order of multiple targets, > >>> e..g. "the first passage on page three, is derived from the second > >>> passage on page five" ... Not as essential, since it's not really > >>> machine actionable ... Another project using lists is Shared > >>> Canvas ... We'd very much like to use JSON-LD there too, for > >>> selecting pages, using a list of pages and so forth ... For this, > >>> we took the "list items" approach; the list doesn't need to be > >>> referenced directly. Markus Lanthaler: robert, do you have the link > >>> of an example at hand? ... But it might be nice to have this > >>> standardized, so people don't reinvent list items all the time. ... > >>> at the mailing list and also the OA community meeting in Europe, we > >>> agreed that we don't want to change the model to accomodate > >>> different syntaxes ... We want to recommend JSON-LD Manu Sporny: > >>> what's the timeline for these needs / when would the WG close > >>> Robert Sanderson: at the moment, the CG is in an implementation > >>> phase. We need to dicuss with Ivan, but we hope to move from CG to > >>> WG next year Manu Sporny: we're very close to CR in JSON-LD. If > >>> we'd add his feature in, it would put us back for many months. > >>> Could we add this for JSON-LD 1.1? ... If we think we can put the > >>> feature in, I think we can easily convince implementers to add it. > >>> If we add it to the test suite, other implementers would add it. > >>> ... So for practical purposes, we aim for it to be added within a > >>> year or so. Robert Sanderson: Yes, that approach could work for > >>> us. Given that your'e much further ahead. It's not our prefered > >>> option, since for implementations, it might be unpredictable. ... > >>> Also, changing this for OA now is much easier than when in a WG ... > >>> I don't believe anyone has implemented it yet, but IDPF needs this > >>> to be implementable Manu Sporny: so we may put it in jSON-LD 1.1 > >>> Niklas Lindström: First thing, as far as I know, Turtle doesn't > >>> support this syntax either. Given that you have a shorthand in > >>> Turtle.... actually, none of the formats in RDF/XML and Turtle > >>> support this sort of list syntax. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] > >>> Markus Lanthaler: niklasl, AFAICT they currently set rdf:rest to a > >>> Turtle list Niklas Lindström: Have you discussed that as well? Am > >>> I missing something? [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Robert > >>> Sanderson: No, I don't think you missed anything. [scribe assist > >>> by Manu Sporny] Robert Sanderson: The identity is easier in > >>> RDF/XML - you have the property for the URI. [scribe assist by Manu > >>> Sporny] Robert Sanderson: We did consider the other > >>> serializations, it's not a ubiquitous feature, but it would be nice > >>> to have in JSON-LD. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Niklas > >>> Lindström: Right, the main argument when we had the issue, even > >>> though it's in the Primer that says there is nothing preventing > >>> lists from being described, multiple start properties, etc. None of > >>> the core syntaxes allow it, it's not intended to be used like that. > >>> [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Niklas Lindström: They're supposed > >>> to be used as syntactic constructs.... model-wise, they're not > >>> really a part of RDF. > > That is not correct. Collections were intended to be an integral > part of RDF. They were used by OWL as a syntactic device for > encoding OWL syntax in RDF, making them unavailable inside OWL, but > that is an OWL/RDF issue. (IMO, with hindsight, this was a serious > mistake in designing the OWL/RDF layering. But I was there at the > time and didn't see the danger myself, so mia culpa.) > > >>> [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Niklas > >>> Lindström: If this is supported in JSON-LD, it would be a lot > >>> easier to deviate from the recommended usage pattern.... also > >>> making it harder for a future RDF spec, who wants to add lists as a > >>> native part of the model [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Niklas > >>> Lindström: You can still use rdf:first / rdf:next explicitly > >>> today. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Robert Sanderson: I agree. > >>> The notion of order in a graph is always problematic. Not the > >>> common method to have a resource that is a list and has identity. > >>> [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Robert Sanderson: Maybe RDF > >>> COncepts 1.1 should discuss it. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] > >>> David Booth: Yeah, RDF WG should consider this. I agree with > >>> Niklas. It doesn't fit w/ the usual list pattern. Important to > >>> consider implications. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] ... Here's an > >>> example: > >>> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/multiplicity.html#List > >>> Robert Sanderson: That's it exactly, thanks Niklas1 Manu Sporny: > >>> any other thoughs on this? Markus Lanthaler: it would make it hard > >>> to expect compaction to behave as predicted ... also, compaction > >>> might be more complex Manu Sporny: Yes. We wanted to stay away > >>> from it since it might be a mine field in general. ... that said, > >>> there might be a case for this. Niklas Lindström: Agree with > >>> Manu's point - there might be something new that's interesting > >>> here. I don't think we should do it w/o discussing implications. > >>> Algorithmic complexity for JSON-LD API and implementations. It > >>> might be almost as problematic as bnodes as predicates. It's > >>> possible to do this in raw RDF. It seems highly obvious that you > >>> can add ID in other properties. On the other hands you... [scribe > >>> assist by Manu Sporny] Manu Sporny: ...can do it w/ literals. > >>> Niklas Lindström: This borders on the syntactical collapse. > >>> [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Markus Lanthaler: syntactically > >>> having a property carrying the actual list is nearly > >>> indistinguishable as the requested form (using "@list" as key) > >>> Robert Sanderson: I agree. The easisest solution for everyone > >>> would be to have a "listItem" as a property. ... and for the RDF > >>> WG, it might be good to define a dedicated predicate for it. > >>> rdf:value is explicitly fuzzy, so you can't always expect a list. > >>> David Booth: Robert, would it be feasible to just wrap the list in > >>> another object, and attach the additional info to the wrapper > >>> object? (I apologize that I have not fully grokked the problem, so > >>> this suggestion may not be helpful.) ... It would be easier to sell > >>> changing the model if there was another predicate for this. Manu > >>> Sporny: so a specific vocabulary for lists would be beneficial in > >>> general, working in all syntaxes ... would that adress this issue? > >>> If we quickly create a list vocabulary? Robert Sanderson: I think > >>> so. Not preferable duing the discussions we had, but the syntactic > >>> arguments may sway this position. ... A single, interoperable > >>> solution is preferable. Manu Sporny: anyone objects to open issue > >>> 75, to continue this dicussion? Niklas Lindström: I think we > >>> should try to have this as an RDF issue - it really would not come > >>> up if lists were core to the RDF model. It's a sore spot in RDF > >>> Concepts. I think we should push it over to the RDF WG immediately. > >>> It's arbitrary if we or OA try to push something forward, it won't > >>> solve the real problem.... not in rdf schema vocab. [scribe assist > >>> by Manu Sporny] Robert Sanderson: +1 to Niklas > >>> > >>> PROPOSAL: Create an issue in the RDF WG to formalize a way to > >>> express lists that need to be identified with a URL and annotated > >>> using properties. > >>> > >>> Manu Sporny: +1 David Booth: +1 Robert Sanderson: +1 Niklas > >>> Lindström: +1 could be someything like rdf:listValue David I. Lehn: > >>> +1 Markus Lanthaler: +1 > >>> > >>> RESOLUTION: Create an issue in the RDF WG to formalize a way to > >>> express lists that need to be identified with a URL and annotated > >>> using properties. > >>> > >>> Topic: GSoC update > >>> > >>> Vikash Agrawal: what's broken in the playground? Manu Sporny: a > >>> bit weird ui paradigm when clicking on expanded form; headings for > >>> JSON-LD Context stay, but the input box disappears. Markus > >>> Lanthaler: http://www.markus-lanthaler.com/jsonld/playground/ > >>> Markus Lanthaler: the headers stay but the inputs disappear. > >>> Previously headers were toggled off if input areas weren't > >>> applicable Manu Sporny: play around a bit. I think the old way is > >>> better. There may be something even better, but right now, the > >>> problem is that something not used is still shown. Vikash Agrawal: > >>> this is bug 50 ... by this week, this should be done. Next week is > >>> a creator app. Markus Lanthaler: could we discuss these things on > >>> the mailing list or the issue tracker? Manu Sporny: email danbri > >>> and gregg regarding a schema.org <http://schema.org> JSON-LD > context Markus Lanthaler: > >>> vikash, here's Sandro's schema.org <http://schema.org> context: > >>> http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/schema-org-context.jsonld Markus > >>> Lanthaler: for the creator app, have a look at: > >>> http://schema-creator.org/ > >>> > >>> Topic: JSON-LD / RDF Alignment > >>> > >>> Manu Sporny: > >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0233.html > >>> > >>> > > Manu Sporny: I went into the spec and tried to integrate what we > >>> have consensus on. ... see the email link above for a list of > >>> things. ... everything should be there except for skolemization > >>> David Booth: I just found it, but I think it looks great (just > >>> some minor things) Manu Sporny: would it adress the LC comment? > >>> David Booth: It might. It's in the right direction. Manu Sporny: > >>> > http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld/20130630/diff-20130411.html#data-model > >>> > >>> > > Manu Sporny: next, Peter's changes. Appendix A was changed to > >>> flat out say that JSON-LD uses an extended RDF model. ... we just > >>> say "Data Model", and that it's an extension of the RDF data > >>> model. Markus Lanthaler: > >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0010.html > >>> > >>> > > ... we need to have a resonse from Peter on this. > >>> David Booth: I'd expect it to be, to the extent that I can channel > >>> Peter. David Booth: Every node is an IRI , a blank node , a > >>> JSON-LD value , or a list . David Booth: restricting the literal > >>> space to JSON-LD values is a restriction rather than an extension > >>> to the RDF model. Robert Sanderson: Sorry, have to attend another > >>> call now, though would like to have stayed for the rest of the > >>> conversation. Thanks everyone for the discussion re lists. ... and > >>> I don't think that lists need to be mentioned there; they are just > >>> sugar. Markus Lanthaler: "A JSON-LD value is a string, a number, > >>> true or false, a typed value, or a language-tagged string." Markus > >>> Lanthaler: thanks for joining robert Manu Sporny: on top, we > >>> extension the value space to json true and false, numbers and > >>> strings. David Booth: A JSON-LD value is a string , a number , true > >>> or false , a typed value , or a language-tagged string . David > >>> Booth: it wasn't clear that those lined up with the corresponding > >>> RDF value space. Manu and David agree that the JSON number value > >>> space is more general. Manu Sporny: different lexical spaces for > >>> booleans in xsd and json > >>> > >>> Topic: Lists in the JSON and RDF data models > >>> > >>> David Booth: What about lists, aren't they the same as expressed > >>> in RDF? Manu Sporny: not convinced that they are.. ... we need to > >>> translate it to something in the data model. In RDF, it translates > >>> to the list properties. There is nothing in RDF concepts to point > >>> to. ... many just assumes that it's basically part of the data > >>> model, but it's formally not David Booth: why not point to rdf > >>> schema? Manu Sporny: not part of the rdf data model. Niklas > >>> Lindström: Yeah, just a comment. Could we correlate this RDF > >>> Concepts problem w/ the suggestion wrt. list values. [scribe assist > >>> by Manu Sporny] David Booth: RDF lists: David Booth: > >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_list Niklas Lindström: > >>> Clearly, lists are under-specified. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] > >>> Niklas Lindström: Maybe we should expand RDF Concepts that is > >>> present in the 2004 Primer and the Syntax that I scanned > >>> previously. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Manu Sporny: but does > >>> rdf schema extend the rdf data model? David Booth: no, just a > >>> convention which is using the rdf data model Markus Lanthaler: > >>> but's still just a vocabulary. In JSON-LD, we use [a keyword and] > >>> an array ... it's like a node type [just as literals] Manu Sporny: > >>> the JSON-LD data model does not talk about rdf:first and rdf:rest > >>> David Booth: I don't think any test cases needs to be changed by > >>> the way this is described. So it's just a question of how this > >>> concept is being described. At present, it's described as a > >>> difference. Manu Sporny: True. We only change how you think about > >>> the data model. Manu Sporny: if we make an argument about the > >>> difference between native JSON literals and RDF literals, we need > >>> to explain the difference of expressing lists as well. David Booth: > >>> I don't see the benefit as a difference, from an RDF perspective. > >>> Niklas Lindström: I think I can answer re: benefit of having > >>> different model wrt. JSON lists and RDF lists. In JSON, there are > >>> arrays, those arrays represent repeated statements in RDF> [scribe > >>> assist by Manu Sporny] Niklas Lindström: RDF people understands > >>> that intuitively. We mention @set because people that don't > >>> understand RDF, but do understand mathematical sets.... ordered > >>> list is more popular than sets in programming. [scribe assist by > >>> Manu Sporny] Niklas Lindström: We need a way to explain lists in > >>> JSON-LD, in the same way that we explain sets, and other things. > >>> Not in a way that introduces rdf:first and rdf:next. [scribe assist > >>> by Manu Sporny] David Booth: Bottom line: I do not see a need to > >>> call out lists as being a difference from the RDF model, but I'm > >>> okay with it being mentioned, in part because I'd like to push RDF > >>> to have native lists. Markus Lanthaler: manu, did you see > >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0010.html > >>> > >>> > > already? > >>> > >>> Topic: Default interpretation of JSON arrays > >>> > >>> David Booth: it seems strange to have @set (unordered) as the > >>> default ... in regular json, the default is ordered Markus > >>> Lanthaler: We discussed this quite a bit in the beginning, the > >>> rationale was that the RDF that was generated would be unmanageable > >>> - lots of blank nodes, lots of rdf:first/rdf:rest, you couldn't > >>> work w/ the RDF anymore. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Markus > >>> Lanthaler: we discussed it quite a bit in the beginning. The > >>> rationale we came up with is that the generated RDF would be very > >>> gruesome, using rdf lists for everything. ... hundreds of blank > >>> nodes for everything. Niklas Lindström: Yeah, I agree. That's the > >>> rationale. While it's true that arrays in JSON are ordered in their > >>> nature, in all the JSON-LD examples, they are commonly only sets. > >>> There is no real order. JSON-LD is intended to be used w/ RDF > >>> properties, there are only a handful of common RDF properties - > >>> author, contributorList, propertyChainAction, where the order is > >>> semantic, it means something. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Niklas > >>> Lindström: In every other case, it's just a bundle of things. I > >>> think that's the better case - explicitly say order doesn't mean > >>> anything. The same thinking has obscured lots of things wrt. XML. > >>> You can rely on the order of the elements, not sure if you should. > >>> It's better to say that "you can't rely on the order", unless > >>> someone says so explicitly. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] David > >>> Booth: As a programmer, I'd use the exact opposite rationale. > >>> [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] David Booth: So if the default were > >>> changed to being ordered, then the examples would have to be > >>> changed to add @set? Markus Lanthaler: > >>> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/12 Niklas Lindström: > >>> We discussed whether we should do it in the @context, we could > >>> define @set to be the default. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] > >>> Niklas Lindström: I agree w/ David that as a programmer, you think > >>> like that. Unless you think otherwise. [scribe assist by Manu > >>> Sporny] David Booth: There is also minimal changes going from JSON > >>> to JSON-LD. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Niklas Lindström: > >>> Datasets on the Web, you never know if the order is intentional or > >>> not. It's better to assume that it's not ordered. [scribe assist by > >>> Manu Sporny] Markus Lanthaler: JSON-LD can already serialize the > >>> same data in so many ways already - remote contexts, you can't > >>> really interpret the data anymore by just looking at it. Maybe > >>> doing it in a processor flag, but not in the context. [scribe > >>> assist by Manu Sporny] Niklas Lindström: I'd like to be able to do > >>> this in the context. "@container": "@set" would be useful to me. > >>> [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] David Booth: Can we have a global > >>> way to indicate @set ? Niklas Lindström: Yeah, but I could wait > >>> for this feature. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] David Booth: I'm > >>> worried about the element of surprise. It reverses the common > >>> expectation. Manu Sporny: It has not come up as a real issue from > >>> anywere though. Markus Lanthaler: Is there a use case for this? > >>> [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] Markus Lanthaler: In the majority > >>> of instances, the order is irrelevant David Booth: yes, quite > >>> possible Manu Sporny: a change could also backfire at this stage > >>> ... we could potentially have a JSON-LD 1.1, for e.g. this. David > >>> Booth: I think the best solution would be a simple global way to > >>> specify @set, and user get used to always doing that. Niklas > >>> Lindström: I think that it can't fly from my point of view - given > >>> that for every case where I've seen order having meaning, it's > >>> always been a very specific technical reason. Implicitly ordered > >>> things as properties on the object. In every specific scenario > >>> where order is used.... [scribe missed] [scribe assist by Manu > >>> Sporny] Niklas Lindström: check out schema.org > <http://schema.org>· only a handful > >>> where the meaning is explicitly ordered: > >>> http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/schema-org-context.jsonld Niklas > >>> Lindström: I might be open that it should be ordered, but not by > >>> default. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny] > >>> > >>> -- manu > >>> > >>> -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu > >>> Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Meritora - Web > >>> payments commercial launch http://blog.meritora.com/launch/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC > >> (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. > >> (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 > >> 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 > >> mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 18:40:40 UTC