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: Adrian Pohl <pohl@hbz-nrw.de>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:44:03 +0100
Message-Id: <52776C630200001400053549@agrippa.hbz-nrw.de>
To: "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "Simon Grant" <asimong@gmail.com>
Cc: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, "RDF WG Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hello,

I can only emphasize Simon's point regarding the definition of @type in the terminology section. I too stumbled over the "data type of a node". In comparison, according to the "RDF concepts and abstract syntax" document RDF datatypes (written as one word) are used "in the representation of values such as integers, floating point numbers and dates" [1] and NOT for typing URI references. I strongly agree with Simon that the definition of "@type" in the JSON-LD terminology section should be adjusted accordingly, especially as this usage of 'data type' can't be found anywhere else in the spec.

Also, I'd like to know why you chose to write "data type" as two words rather than as one....

All the best
Adrian

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-Datatypes-intro

>>> On 2.11.2013 at 18:16, Simon Grant <asimong@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 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
> "@type
> 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
> 
> Simon
> -- 
> from Simon Grant +44 7710031657 http://www.simongrant.org/home.html
Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 08:44:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:58 UTC