W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: comments/questions on JSON-LD spec (but _not_ for the CG->WG transition!)

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:34:54 -0400
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Gregg Kellogg <greggkellogg@gmail.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BC8C1D18-30A6-4609-8B5E-21602CCA1C7E@3roundstones.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On Jun 14, 2012, at 06:29, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Comment 2: There is, of course, the general question whether it is wise to publish a FPWD with a @graph features as long as the discussion on named graphs is still raging in the group. Maybe that section should be stripped down, for the moment, to the bare minimum that is necessary to express a graph with several top level subjects... But that is just a thought. I know the API values are set in terms of quads but we can say, at this moment, that JSON-LD does not yet have a syntax to express the full quads, only those for a default graph...

Conversely (but not disagreeing), we should ensure that the JSON-LD use cases for named graphs are reflected in our decisions.


Received on Thursday, 14 June 2012 14:35:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:18 UTC