W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: [JSON] Semantics of JSON

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:36:17 +0000
Cc: <richard@cyganiak.de>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <626CBBBE-6084-4E25-9532-489671B48B5B@deri.org>
To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

My 2c:

>> An object is [an unordered collection of] zero or more name/value
>> pairs. A name is a string. The names within an object SHOULD be  
>> unique.

Maybe it helps looking at YAML, which claims to be a superset of JSON.

Cheers,
	Michael

[1] http://www.yaml.org/spec/1.2/spec.html#id2759572

--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html

On 25 Mar 2011, at 13:16, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
> Subject: [JSON] Semantics of JSON
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:22:31 -0500
>
>> On 25 Mar 2011, at 03:19, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> What I think is really needed for the WG to proceed much further  
>>> is at
>>> least initial drafts for:
>>> 1/ effective syntax for JSON (RFC4627 gives the reference syntax,  
>>> but
>>>  what are the problematic parts of this syntax)
>>
>> RFC4627 *is* the effective syntax.
>
> So the WG can reuse member names in objects?  What about colons, etc.?
> What about the numbers posted a while ago?
>
>>> 2/ some notion of the meaning of JSON
>>
>> Is the following account of the meaning of JSON good enough, Peter?  
>> This
>> is selective copy-and-pasting from RFC4627. I added the bits in  
>> [square?]
>> brackets to assist the context-impaired. The only part that is
>> problematic in this copy-and-paste effort is the SHOULD, because  
>> objects
>> with duplicate names do not work as expected in many implementations.
>>
>>
>> A JSON text is a serialized object or array.
>>
>> An object is [an unordered collection of] zero or more name/value
>> pairs. A name is a string. The names within an object SHOULD be  
>> unique.
>>
>> An array is [an ordered [sequence?] of] zero or more values.
>>
>> A value is an object, array, number, or string, or one of the  
>> following
>> three literal names: false null true
>>
>> Numeric values that cannot be represented as sequences of digits  
>> (such
>> as Infinity and NaN) are not permitted.
>
> Add in
>
> A string is a sequence of zero or more Unicode characters.
>
> and maybe a few more low-level details and I would be happy with  
> it.  In
> fact, I expected that there would be a document that explicitly stated
> this, but I've been hearing "RFC 4627 is only concerned with syntax",
> which goes against using it to talk about the meaning of JSON.
>
> However, I wouldn't then want anyone to say "Well, you can have  
> multiple
> values as long as one of them is null.  After all, null isn't a real
> value."  or, more likely, "Null means that there is no value, so it  
> can
> be surpressed during parsing and serializing".
>
> peter
>
> PS:  I note the strange status of boolean in RFC 4627 and the weird
> situation in the Parsers section.
>
Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 14:36:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:04 UTC