Re: Syntax doc edits to avoid implying that JSON-LD is not RDF

On 07/30/2013 12:30 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Monday, July 29, 2013 12:16 AM, David Booth wrote:
>> Attached are the corresponding changes that I see that are needed
>> in the syntax document:
>> Again, three documents are attached:
>> - json-ld-index.html.old: A snapshot of the Syntax document as it
>> was before I made the attached edits, to provide a basis for
>> diffs.
>> - json-ld-index2.html: The Syntax document containing my suggested
>> changes.
>> - json-ld-index2-diffs.txt: Diffs between the above files.
> Just as with your changes for the API spec, I've created a pull
> request for this and commented the changes there. See:
>> Other editorial issues that I noticed but I did not fix in the
>> attached version:
>> 1. The Abstract begins: "JSON is a useful data serialization and
>> messaging format".  Delete "useful" or perhaps delete the whole
>> sentence.  (Other data serialization and messaging formats are
>> *not* useful?)
> The abstract is a teaser trying to convince people to read the rest.
> As such, I think it is fine to include such a statement. Just because
> something is useful doesn't automatically mean other things aren't.

It's a stylistic question, so it isn't a big deal either way, but since 
it is the very first sentence in the spec that someone is likely to 
read, it may be worth asking a few others what they think.

>> 2. The Features at Risk section needs to be updated regarding
>> blank nodes as predicates.
> Are you still talking about the syntax spec?


> Why does it need to be
> changed? Because it doesn't list those three options? That's just an
> issue marker and will be dropped in the final document.

Okay.  I wasn't sure how it should be updated, so I didn't touch it.

> David, could you please join the JSON-LD Community Group
> ( so that we can use your
> contributions. I will check if we need anything else from you before
> I can merge those changes.



Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 17:43:34 UTC