- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:12:56 +0000
- To: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- CC: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Steve Harris wrote: > I'm also not keen on [[ ]] for RDF collections, but don't see a sensible alternative. The main alternatives are to simply not include support for either multiple values or RDF Collections. [[ ]] is unexpected for JSON users, and I fear that in reality people will simply think we are mad, after all the context under which I proposed the [[ ]] syntax was for a machine optimized RDF+N3 in JSON, and not what we appear to be looking at creating now (what I'd refer to loosely as Data Objects). Looking at this practically, most of our target market do not have the concept of multiple values, nor do they have support for multiple values in their stacks. They do however work with arrays and collections intensively. I'd actually propose that we drop multiple value support and keep the [] notation for RDF collections. To illustrate, if somebody has a property with multiple values for the label, they will typically write: "labels": ["Foo", "Bar"], Notice that's plural "labels" not singular "label", my way of language they are saying "this is a collection of labels", and that is the most common usage - indeed it's practically about the only option many developers have in their non-RDF tech stacks. This approach of only supporting RDF Collections (producing JS Arrays) makes sense to people. [[ ]] syntax and "multiple values" do not. On the RDF side, surely we can create some properties if we need to? rdf:labels -> a collection of rdf:label relating to the subject. Best, Nathan
Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 09:14:08 UTC