W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > November 2013

Re: Official response to RDF-ISSUE-163: Determine if @type overloading is acceptable for JSON-LD 1.0

From: Simon Grant <asimong@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 17:16:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CALV740SgsbZQ9jSjxWQ=_TmTEFkG8dJqE713zagCeEiBDDL3xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Adrian Pohl <pohl@hbz-nrw.de>, RDF WG Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
One more extra suggestion...

On 31 October 2013 04:27, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> Let me first start by saying that you make a very good point about
> terminology. Confusion over the dual-use of @type was something that we
> were concerned about when we made the change a few years ago. You are
> underscoring that the concern we had was not unfounded. So, in
> principle, the group agrees with your general concern and approach to
> addressing the issue. So much so that I think we already make this
> distinction in the document. See the definition of "@type":
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/spec/PR/
> json-ld/20131105/index.html#syntax-tokens-and-keywords
Sorry I omitted to check the consistency of this in my previous reply.

Unfortunately the current text reads
Used to set the data type of a node or typed value. This keyword is
described in section 6.4 Typed Values."
but in 6.4 the reader has to wait quite some time before finding the place
where the distinction between node type and data type is spelled out. The
main point of my reply was to point out that this clarificatory note ("A
node type specifies the type of thing that is being described, like a
person, place, event, or web page. A value type specifies the data type of
a particular value, such as an integer, a floating point number, or a
date.") is very helpful, and should to my mind be given more prominence,
and worked into the documentation thoroughly. The phrase in the definition,
"the data type of a node or typed value" is actually confusing to me. Value
type is happily described as a data type, but describing node type as a
data type invites a misunderstanding that is hard to express clearly in
words :) .

OK, if I were to redraft this definition (and I guess it is too late to do
this) it might go something like this:
"Used both to set the the type of a node, and (separately) to set its data
type. Section 5.4 Specifying the Type describes how to use this keyword to
set a node type; section 6.4 Typed Values describes how to use this keyword
to set a data type."

It might also be useful and helpful to define the terms "node type" and
"data type" somewhere in Section 3 of the spec.

Best wishes

from Simon Grant +44 7710031657 http://www.simongrant.org/home.html
Received on Saturday, 2 November 2013 17:16:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:43 UTC