Re: [JSON] A starting point...

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Subject: [JSON] A starting point...
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 19:50:38 -0500

> I really liked Nathan's proposal a few weeks ago:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Mar/0565.html

[...]

> I'd like to see if we can come to some sort of consensus on a starting
> point based on Nathan's proposal. I'm going to remove things that raised
> issues w/ some people and see if we can all agree if the result could be
> the starting point for the JSON work.
> 
> Note that this proposal is imperfect by design - it is only here to
> capture the things that the majority of the group seem to agree upon.
> It's merely meant to put a stake in the ground so that we may start
> building on top of it. If we can get agreement on these 5 principles,
> then we can add on features as the group discusses them:
> 
> 1: Constrain JSON [1] to be an (optionally nested) sequence of one or
>    more objects (where one, no enclosing [] is needed).

I believe that I raised an issue with this one.

> 2: constrain object keys to be strings with no white space.

I believe that I raised an issue with this one.

> 3: add recognition for a special "@id" property who's value is an IRI
>    (sets the subject of the object when present).

I believe that I raised an issue with the wording here.

> 4: add recognition for a special "@type" property who's value is a
>    simple string. The value is looked up in the @context.

I believe that I raised an issue with this one.
 
> 5: Support a "@context" property that allows for a set of mappings from
>    JSON keys to IRIs.
> 
> {
>   "@context":
>   {
>      "Person": "http://xmlns.com/0.1/foaf/Person",
>      "name": "http://xmlns.com/0.1/foaf/name",
>   },
>   "@id": "http://jondoe.example.org/#me",
>   "@type": "Person",
>   "name": "Nathan Rixham"
> }

I don't think that @context was part of Nathan's proposal at all.

> That's it - please +1 below each number if you support the general
> direction of the feature. -1 if you don't, please explain if you don't.
> It's been around 2 weeks, so hopefully some of us have had time to let
> these ideas kick around in our heads for a while. I'll try to setup a
> Doodle poll to have a discussion about this proposal later on in the
> week as well as discuss some of the serialization work that Tom has done.
> 
> -- manu

peter

Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 11:55:31 UTC