- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 12:44:41 +0200
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Message-ID: <CADjV5jdbjAzg=7EfaPvLaXRatgOFfiaA0Vp__xvVik=3cn7J4g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Markus, On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>wrote: > CC'ing public-linked-json as this discussion might result in a change to > the > algorithms and may help the OpenAnnotation people. > > > On Thursday, July 04, 2013 10:21 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > The set of all heads of well-formed lists can be found quite easily. > > > > All lists have a common tail (rdf:nil). Just walk back up the list > > checking nodes have exactly one rdf:first and one rdf:next triple. > > This generates the list head. > > You are of course right and the necessary changes to the algorithm should > be > quite small. > > Currently a @list can never be the value of a rdf:first/rdf:rest. This kind > of ensures that only "complete" lists are transformed to @list and that we > don't produce lists of lists in JSON-LD. > > An example might clarify what I mean. Currently we would never produce > something like > > { > "@id": "http://example.com/", > "rdf:first": "A", > "rdf:rest": { "@list": [ "B", "C", "D" ] } > } > > all the list bnodes would be preserved: > > [ > { > "@id": "http://example.com/", > "rdf:first": "A", > "rdf:rest": { "@list": [ "B", "C", "D" ] } > }, > { > "@id": "_:b0", > "rdf:first": "B" > "rdf:rest": { "@id": "_:b1" } > }, > ... > ] > Detail: in the second example (how it is currently), first object, you meant "rdf:rest": "_:b0", right? > Arguably changing that would result in a nicer result. This might also be a > quite elegant solution for the OpenAnnotation people. I think we could > threat this change as an algorithmic bug fix (meaning, no need for another > LC). > > I've created ISSUE-277 for this: > https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/277 > > > Thoughts? > I agree. I actually thought it was supposed to behave this way, so I'd certainly consider it a bug fix. Cheers, Niklas -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > >
Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 10:45:38 UTC