- From: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 07:04:04 +0000
- To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <01020157bcdae368-3420ba9f-3a16-473a-b9a9-6499d6d54b5c-000000@eu-west-1.amazonse>
> On 2016-10-13, at 04:18, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > > First off, thanks to all of you for this thread, and for the renewed interest in JSON-LD Framing! > >>>>> Gregg >>> Additionally, the Framing algorithm [2] has proven to be important, but work on the specification was never complete, and >>>> implementations have moved beyond what was documented in any case. >>>>> Markus >> It is certainly handy but I'm not sure there's agreement on what exactly it should be. Initially it was just (or at least mostly) >>>> about re-framing an existing graph... I think what a lot of people (myself included) actually want and need is to query a graph and control >>>> the serialization of the result. Maybe we should start with a discussion on the role of framing!? > > I agree that there is often a need to query and then Frame the result, but I'm concerned that bundling both capabilities into one syntax/solution might be a mistake at this point. Framing seems hard enough by itself. Wouldn't it be better to just tackle Framing first, and later look at the possibility of bundling a query capability? the case would need to be made, that a bundled query capability provides sufficient additional expressiveness when compared to combining simple framing with other independent facilities to outweigh the significant additional complexity. best regards, from berlin --- james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2016 07:04:35 UTC