- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 10:11:28 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
Peter,
The way you put it is strange: you first say that all JSON should be
allowed, then immediately show that it would be a problem.
So, can you explain why it *should* be so?
--AZ
Le 02/11/2023 à 18:32, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit :
> My stance on rdf:JSON is that if rdf:JSON is included in the RDF
> recommendations then it should be JSON - with all the syntactical
> warts. So valid rdf:JSON literals should include all of:
>
> "{\"a\": 1, \"a\": 2}"^^rdf:JSON
> "1e1000"^^rdf:JSON
> "\\uDEAD"^^rdf:JSON
>
>
> Each of these three literals provide problems for the value space and
> the lexical-to-value mapping. I would prefer an expansive value space
> but this is not what is specified in JSON-LD 1.1 so I can live with a
> more-constrained value space so long as the lexical space is not reduced.
>
>
>
>
> peter
>
--
Antoine Zimmermann
École des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
CS 62362
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 49 97 02
http://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/
Received on Friday, 3 November 2023 09:13:07 UTC