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

ericP's review of JSON-LD Syntax (just a start)

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 06:54:14 -0400
To: RDF-WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120618105413.GB4615@w3.org>
* Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> [2012-06-17 17:11+0100]
> Purpose of review:
> 1/ Check on moving from the community group to the RDF-WG and REC track
> 2/ Suitability for FPWD
> tl;dr
> 1/ Yes - it is in a state to move from CG to WG.
> 2/ Yes - ready to publish as FPWD

I read this as endorsing an FPWD publications without requiring further edits. I also think that would be fine. I would prefer a sprinkling of issue text in the doc first, but only if we could agree on those issue within a week.

I spent a lot of time futzing with the Turtle grammar this weekend and didn't get far with a detailed review of ld-syntax. There's some chance that my detailed review may be redundant against other reviews and it may take me some time to get back to it, so here are my notes so far:


examining <http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/> 15 June 2012

link to <http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/diff-20120522.html> => 404

Last to paragraphs of SOTD repeated after TOC.

refs <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4627.txt>, which i recall being out of synch with e.g. <http://www.json.org/>.
  can we reference HTML form <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4627>? Others have made that leap of faith.

§1 ¶1
s/you/one/ # personal taste.

§1.1 ¶7
s/collection of values/sequence of zero or more values/ # match rfc4627 §1 ¶5.

§1.1 ¶8
s/Unicode (UTF-8) characters/Unicode characters/ # "UTF-8" characters ambiguous between codepoints and bytes.

§1.1 ¶11
NULL @context requires detailed forward understanding.
  perhaps add the text "@context is <a href="@@">defined below</a>"?
  or maybe swap §1.1 and §1.2 (no contraindications that I saw).

§1.2 ¶3
s/@graph Used to explicitly express/@graph Used to explicitly label/?
no forward ref to definition (others have such a ref).

§1.3 should be in SOTD (in WD)

§2 ¶6 Zero Edits means it's like GRDDL for JSON -- neato

§3.1 ¶2 overloading of "objects". is there any graceful way to disambiguate without relying on hrefs?

§3.1 ¶3,5 RDF very practical definitions of subject and object, but slightly at odds with RDF defns which cast subjects and objects in terms of their role in a triple.

§3.1 ¶4 "A subject should be labeled with an IRI" could push folks to inventing identifiers they won't/can't honor or reproduce.

§3.1 ¶8 s/the linked data graph/a linked data graph/ ?

§3.1 ¶9 RDF properties MUST be IRIs

§3.1 ¶10 "dereferencable to a Linked Data document" - is RDFS in RDF/XML a "Linked Data document"?
Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 10:54:47 UTC

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