W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > July 2013

RE: API edits to avoid implying that JSON-LD is not RDF

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:29:06 +0200
To: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01b801ce8c67$fbbc60f0$f33522d0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Monday, July 29, 2013 4:03 PM, David Booth wrote:
> On 07/28/2013 11:01 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> [ . . . ]
> > There's slightly more than serialization / deserialization going on
> > IMHO.  For example the JSON Number is coerced to XSD integer / double
> > which are not 100%  the same things, depending on the implementation.
> >
> > I dont think these changes are terrible, but unless I've missed
> > something, convert seems to be accurate here, and I'd lean towards
> > keeping things the same.
> Yes, and I actually kept the word "convert" when discussing lower-level
> things like data type conversions, for exactly the reason that you cite.
>   The use of phrases like "serialize from RDF" and "deserialize to RDF"
> is only at the higher level, in discussing the overall process.

I haven't looked at the changes yet but I tend to agree with Melvin. These
are not serialization algorithms, i.e., they are not producing an output in
any of the concrete RDF syntaxes but emit abstract data structures
representing RDF's data model, i.e., triples/quads. So, what if we would
call those algorithms "Convert to/from RDF Quads Algorithm" instead?

To be honest, I don't really see why we can't keep the current names given
that the algorithms convert abstract RDF to a concrete JSON-LD serialization
or vice versa.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Monday, 29 July 2013 14:29:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:38 UTC