- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:10:05 +0100
- To: "'Antoine Zimmermann'" <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Cc: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "'Guus Schreiber'" <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:19 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > > Honestly it sounds a bit strange to me to simply accept that there is > a > > fundamental problem without trying to address it - especially > considering > > that the problem has been known since at least 2005 (2002?). > > What problem are you referring to? We know well since 2005, or maybe > earlier, that the rules are not complete. We will fix it. Great! > The bnode-in-predicate and literal-in-subject issues are not problems, > they are simply decisions to restrict the language. Why are those restrictions there? I'm specifically talking about bnode-in-predicate. > We have accepted at the F2F that JSON-LD is able to do more than just > RDF graphs and as far as the persons present at the meeting are > concerned, it seemed to be ok for the WG members. So I don't see a big > issue here. OK, I didn't have that impression and also David's comment suggests that that's not really the case. > It is also consistent with my suggestion that JSON-LD > state in their spec that there may be valid JSON syntax that is not > valid JSON-LD. > > There needs to be a "fix" here, but it is an easy one not a major > rewrite. .. but maybe there's also just a misunderstanding on my side. Regards, Markus -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 13:10:44 UTC