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

Re: RDF WG Resolutions

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 22:02:11 +0100
Message-Id: <F0462E49-79AD-4023-A099-9093F7F57A55@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, JSON LD <public-linked-json@w3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
On 15 May 2013, at 18:20, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> On 05/15/2013 01:10 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> It is likely that DERI will formally object to the resolution to allow blank nodes as graph names. It's not required to fulfil RDF-WG's charter, throws RDF and SPARQL out of alignment, and has significant implementation costs. This is something for a future N3 working group, not something that should be added at last minute before LC.
> 
> (Note that procedurally formal objections are from individuals, not organizations.)

Ah. In that case: I intend to file a formal objection if this resolution, which came as an utter surprise to me, is not overturned.

> Is there someone (I hope it can be you) who can join a call (maybe a side-call) to talk this through?

I will join a call if this topic is on the agenda and I can make the time slot. (Lots of travel and non-negotiable meetings recently.)

Richard



> 
>        -- Sandro
> 
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> On 15 May 2013, at 17:10, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> We have two resolutions from the RDF WG today:
>>> 
>>> The first is a resolution to allow Blank Node identifiers to be used as graph names. If this stands, it resolves an at-risk issue: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-15#resolution_2. We shouldn't try to remove this from the LC2 document yet, as the last word may not have been said on this.
>>> 
>>> The second resolution allows us to publish https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/spec/WD/json-ld-api/20130516/index.html as LC2 tomorrow: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-05-15#resolution_3.
>>> 
>>> The assumption is that, prior to PR, we will resolve the newly introduced useNativeTypes issue by moving the flag from fromRdf to expand, with a pass-through from other algorithms. This would put the application programmer in charge of using native or canonical representations of numbers and booleans, and eliminates any round-tripping issues. If expanding with useNativeTypes=true, values with a numeric or boolean datatype but a string representation would be converted to JSON numbers or booleans, including xsd:decimal. If set to false, native types would be transformed back to either xsd:boolean or xsd:double values. Of course, we may want to tweak this some more.
>>> 
>>> Gregg Kellogg
>>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
> 

Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 21:02:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:37 UTC