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

Re: Review: JSON-LD syntax

From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:27:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4FE78636.1050907@epimorphics.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org

On 23/06/12 20:47, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> S3.1 "A property SHOULD be labeled with an IRI" : how come it is not
>> >a MUST? What else could they be?

> In JSON, a property can be a plain literal, and it's perfectly valid.
> Making this a MUST needlessly restricts the language in the event that
> somebody finds a use for plain-literals-as-properties in the future. In
> fact, all of JSON's properties are plain literals, so you could say that
> the use case already exists.

What's the use case for literals-as-properties?

If it's for the future, what other features of JSON-LD are there that 
are beyond RDF 1.1 for future proofing?

What is the status of a document with @context that does not map some 
key name?

At least a second Note is needed in section 3.1.

A property isn't just a label - it defines a set of (subject, object) 
pairs on which it is true.

A literal defines a mapping from lexical to value space.

(Maybe defining it's value to be pairs works - I don't know - it may 
possible because the requirement is that <I(s),I(o)> is in IEXT(I(p)).)

But as things currently stand, properties are URI as everyone agrees on 
the meaning of the relationship so even from a non-technical point-of- 
view this is quite important.

(it also means that there are some JSON-LD documents that can't be 
represented as RDF)

Received on Sunday, 24 June 2012 21:28:10 UTC

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