> On Jun 14, 2012, at 3:29 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:47, Gregg Kellogg 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... > > Point taken, and Manu had raised this, except that we had specific use cases to address. I'd suggest we mark the section as at-risk instead of removing it entirely. > > Gregg That sounds good. Thanks, Gregg. Regards, Dave
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 13:54:21 UTC