W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > March 2016

Re: a question about framing test 16

From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:46:32 +0000
Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01020153c7fd7dc5-4b4efe44-e204-4e52-935e-b11a723bfad9-000000@eu-west-1.amazonses.com>
To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
good afternoon;

> On 2016-03-30, at 16:37, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On 03/29/2016 02:23 AM, james anderson wrote:
>> good morning;
>> 
>> the manifest entry for test 16 notes "Use @type in ducktype filter”,
>> which reads as though clause 2.3 from the framing algorithm is
>> intended. the but the frame for that test contains
>> 
>> "@type": {},
>> 
>> which corresponds to clause 2.2. if, on the other hand, the frame
>> omits the type - in order to effect the “ducktype filter”, then the
>> library typed object qualifies, but its untyped constituent does not
>> meet the constraint established by that frame, yet the constituent
>> is present in the test case output.
>> 
>> what is the intent?
> 
> The test case output has the untyped constituent as an embedded node of
> the library typed object. Because the library typed object qualifies,
> and embedding is on by default, any related nodes will be embedded
> within that object in the result.



“by default” means, unless the constituent includes its own frame? (see pls my question about test 14.)

best regards, from berlin;
---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com






Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 14:47:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:47 UTC