W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > November 2019

Re: Handling integers

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:21:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CABevsUEKkcwgkpzPpB362fOyBSHNY16aKhR_9L+-ZEFYQ=ccvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Angelo Veltens <angelo.veltens@online.de>
Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>
Did you set the useNativeTypes flag to true?

See just above this:
  https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11-api/#remote-document-and-context-retrieval

Rob


On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 8:03 AM Angelo Veltens <angelo.veltens@online.de>
wrote:

> Hi Benjamin,
>
> thanks for your explanation. I appreciate any response even though it's
> late, no problem :)
>
> The big benefit I see in JSON-LD, is that it really simplifies the usage
> of RDF in JavaScript applications, as in many cases an RDF graph can be
> compacted to a plain and simple JSON object. Of course there are always
> graphs that get more complicated, like when it contains multiple languages
> or non primitive types. But in my experience many, many practical cases can
> be serialized to a simple-to-use JSON object.
>
> This is why I find it very annoying to get
>
> "age": {
>     "@value": "27",
>     "@type": "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer"
>   }
>
> when one could also use a simple
>
> "age": 27
>
> This is just making things more complicated without necessity.
>
> This way, JSON-LD is just yet-another-RFD-serialization and looses it's
> benefits in my opinion.
>
> Although I understand your conclusion, this is my input/feedback from a
> practicability point-of-view.
>
> Kind regards,
> Angelo
> On 04.10.19 17:41, Benjamin Young wrote:
>
> Hey Angelo,
>
> Sorry I missed this email back in...May. ;-P
>
> I wondered very similar things, and we discussed them a bit in the JSON-LD
> WG recently:
> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-bp/issues/14
>
> The ultimate conclusion is that JSON-LD does one thing: encodes a graph in
> JSON by mapping local names to global names (and wrangling various JSON
> shapes into graphy ones).
>
> So, essentially type casting of this sort, isn't JSON-LD's job...but a
> tool that uses the expanded form (for instance) might be able to clean-up
> data on ingest or generation.
>
> Here's how I summarized it in the issue:
> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-bp/issues/14#issuecomment-532125931
>
> Ultimately we plan to explain that in the forthcoming Best Practices
> guide. As someone else who's shared this confusion, your input here would
> be most welcome. :)
>
> Cheers,
> Benjamin
> Co-Chair, W3C JSON-LD
>
> --
>
> http://bigbluehat.com/
>
> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Angelo Veltens <angelo.veltens@online.de>
> <angelo.veltens@online.de>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2019 4:46 AM
> *To:* JSON-LD CG <public-linked-json@w3.org> <public-linked-json@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Handling integers
>
> Hi everybody,
>
> Question regarding Integers in JSON-LD.
>
> Given the following snippet:
>
> {
>   "@context": {
>     "@vocab": "http://vocab.example/"
>   },
>   "age": {
>     "@value": "27",
>     "@type": "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer"
>   }
> }
>
> Is there a JSON-LD algorithm / context to transform it to a real JSON
> integer?
>
> {
>   "@context": {
>     "@vocab": "http://vocab.example/"
>   },
>   "age": 27
> }
>
> They are semantically the same, but the upper construct is much more
> complicated to handle in JavaScript application and does not give any
> additional value. I would have expected at least the compact algorithm
> to output the latter construct.
>
> All the best,
> Angelo
>
>

-- 
Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Received on Friday, 15 November 2019 16:21:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:53 UTC