- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 14:59:22 -0400
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, RDF WG Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi Gregg, This is an official response to RDF-ISSUE-134: Blank node identifiers for properties and graph names, which is being tracked here: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/134 A related issue has been tracked here: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/217 The discussion on this issue revolved around whether or not blank nodes should be allowed to identify predicates and graphs. As you know, the RDF WG agreed to add support for blank node identifiers graphs in RDF 1.1 Concepts a while ago. Thus leaving blank node identifiers for predicates as the remaining topic of controversy: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-generalized-rdf We discussed the subject of blank node identifiers for predicates with a number of members of the RDF WG and came to the conclusion that JSON-LD could support them /and/ the RDF data model outlined in RDF 1.1 Concepts by restricting the general operation of JSON-LD processors to be fully conforming to RDF 1.1 Concepts. We also added a flag that allows JSON-LD processors to output "generalized RDF", which when set to true, will result in blank node identifiers for predicates being preserved: http://json-ld.org/spec/CR/json-ld-api/20130822/#deserialize-json-ld-to-rdf-algorithm We believe that this addresses the concern you raised about this topic since you were deeply involved in the solution to the problem. Please respond to this email as soon as possible to verify that the group has implemented a solution that is acceptable to you with respect to ISSUE-134. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Meritora - Web payments commercial launch http://blog.meritora.com/launch/
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 18:59:44 UTC