Re: a question about framing test 14

good afternoon;

> On 2016-03-30, at 16:48, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On 03/29/2016 08:05 AM, james anderson wrote:
>> good morning;
>> 
>> the output for test 14 notes includes an object for
>> 
>> "ex:sees": { "@id": "_:b0", "ex:remember_me": "This value should not
>> disappear." }
>> 
>> even though the object’s type specification does not conform to that
>> of the frame. does this indicate that the passage regarding matched
>> subjects should be understood to apply to the top-level sequence
>> only. that is, embedded objects are included without regard to type
>> constraint - even if the embedded member definition includes its own
>> frame definition?
> 
> Yes. Framing is a mechanism for organizing a graph into tree structures
> according to some filter. It will find nodes from the graph that match
> the filter and place them as roots of the output trees. Any other nodes
> that are related to the matching nodes will be, by default, embedded
> within the matching nodes and appear as leaves in the trees.
> 
> You can further explore the behavior of framing (and probably find bugs
> for us! :P) by using the json-ld playground:

if i were to have understood the framing document, i would perhaps be in position to posit bugs.

> 
> http://json-ld.org/playground
> 
> The embed behavior can be modified using the options described here:
> 
> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/377
> 
> The framing spec is sorely out-of-date and does not include options like
> those specified in that issue.

this reads as if one has yet to decide, what the framing algorithm is intended to do.

is there some way to understand the comments to that issue as an answer to the question about how nested embedding is to work other than “by default"?
i see the options, but the intended effect is not clear. 

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