- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:48:09 +0200
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I am worried about this. Of course, there may be situation where this might be handy. But... I am, in general, afraid of building an RDF/XML in JSON. What I mean is that having too much choices to express the same things may lead to user confusion and, ultimately, rejection. My personal feeling is that we should have a feature freeze in JSON-LD and, rather, look at every feature and variations with eagle eyes to see if they are needed and, in case of doubt, remove them. Ivan On Jul 11, 2012, at 17:26 , Markus Lanthaler wrote: > On Wednesday, July 11, 2012 4:17 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote: >> Interestingly I was thinking along the same line last night. >> My use case was a nested object where the same key happens to >> appear at different levels of nesting, much like Pierre-Antoine's >> example. In other words, this would allow overriding the context >> inside a nested element of a JSON object. A good example is for >> the example a key 'item' which might appear at several levels of >> nesting, and that might qualify for a different mapping depending >> on what level it's at. > > The way we address this as the moment is by adding a @context to the nested > object to redefine properties (terms). The advantage of the solution > proposed by Pierre-Antoine is that it could also be used for legacy JSON > where it is impossible to inject @context definitions into the data. > > I created ISSUE-144 for this [1]. Lets continue the discussion there. > > > [1] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/144 > > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 09:48:36 UTC