RE: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-132: JSON-LD/RDF Alignment

On Monday, June 10, 2013 9:37 AM, Peter Ansell wrote:
> On 9 June 2013 19:58, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> I you have specific proposals to make, make them now. As you very well
>> know, we'll discuss all of them. But just criticizing design decisions
>> without providing new insights or superior solutions doesn't bring as
>> forward and honestly I have better things to do than to write the same
>> mails over and over again.
> 
> My proposal is to ensure interoperability with RDF. As you seem to
> imply at [1], modifying the specification to state that it supports
> the compatibility from JSON-LD back to RDF seems to be non-negotiable
> at this point.

Don't put this out of context. I'm against doing so in the first (non-normative) sentence in the document. There's a whole section discussing the relationship between RDF and JSON-LD. I'm more than happy to extend that section if anything is missing there.


> As long as RDF data can be consistently converted
> *into*, non-native-numeric JSON-LD that is being viewed as good enough
> by the authors of the specification.

I'm confused. What do you want? We can either convert RDF data into native types (and potentially loose precision by doing so) or to JSON strings preserving the lexical form. We support both.


> The specific points that I am
> interested in have already been responded to. Ie, blank node
> predicates (negative)

So, you would like us to disallow blank node predicates? Is it better that data doesn't show up at all when converting to "RDF" than to have it show up with blank node identifiers? It is easy enough to filter such triples if you want to.


> /blank node datatypes (positive, [2])

That's a spec bug and was never intended. We throw errors in some places but not all.


> /JSON native numeric datatypes versus XMLSchema datatypes (negative).

Even though I asked you explicitly how you would handle that (and presented three options with pros & cons), you didn't give me an answer. So, again. How would you like to see that handled?



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 09:36:19 UTC