- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:46:32 +0000
- To: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 14:47:02 UTC
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