- From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:16:06 -0700
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > We had a small side-discussion at the F2F meeting today about > differences between lists in the JSON-LD data model and lists in the RDF > data model. This devolved/evolved into a re-hash of the JSON-LD data > model vs. the RDF data model discussion: > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Data_Model > > I was going to start by ranting about RDF lists, but it seems I already > did that back in May: > > "I really hate RDF Lists" > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0098.html > > Not having Graph/Dataset Literal as a primitive in RDF is also harming > the RDF data model. We should be able to place a graph/dataset literal > in the object position of an RDF triple. I don't expect that this group > will be able to resolve either issue, but I just thought I'd throw this > out there so that some of you might understand what is lacking in the > RDF data model. > > Resolving these two issues above would help align the JSON-LD data model > with the RDF data model, specifically: > > 1. "Graph names can be blank nodes." The question of whether or not > graph names can be blank nodes would have to be answered. I'd argue > that you should be able to name graphs using blank nodes. We did resolve this. Graph labels must be IRIs. > 2. "Lists are part of the data model." Lists are part of the data model > would be true for both models. > 3. "Graphs/datasets are 'allowed' in the object position." Graphs would > be "allowed" in the object position in both models. We did resolve this, we are not specifying graph literals nor dataset literals at this time. > > We have simple answers to some of the other differences that would align > the two data models. > > 1. "Unconnected nodes (IRIs, blank nodes or values) are supported." We > should add: "Authors SHOULD NOT use unconnected nodes (a node > definition that does not contain any properties) in JSON-LD > documents." > 2. "Edge labels may be blank nodes." We should add: "Authors SHOULD > NOT use blank nodes as edge labels." > 3. "Language tags are not normalized to lower case." We should add: > "JSON-LD processors MUST normalize all language tags to lowercase > when processing documents via the JSON-LD Algorithms." > 4. "Scope of blank node labels". We should add: "Blank node labels are > scoped to the JSON-LD document." > > Which leaves these two differences between the JSON-LD data model and > the RDF data model: > > 1. "Supports 'plain' strings, numbers and booleans, separately from > typed literals." This is true for TURTLE as well, so if there is a > problem with JSON-LD, then there is a problem with TURTLE when it > comes to this issue. > 2. "Language maps are part of the data model." This is syntactic sugar > that was a requested "deal breaker" feature by the Drupal community. > If we don't include it, Drupal will willfully violate the JSON-LD > spec (or come up with their own solution). Digital Bazaar's > implementations will support Drupal by adding the feature to the > implementation, thus willfully violating the JSON-LD spec. The > difference in the data model does not result in any loss of > information when converting to RDF, other than the ability to > re-create the exact JSON-LD language-map structure when converting > back to JSON-LD from RDF. I personally don't think people will > care about not being able to round-trip language-maps from > JSON-LD to RDF and back to JSON-LD, but if they do, Gregg Kellogg > has proposed a mechanism that allows that to happen. > > Hope that is a helpful rundown of the differences between the two data > models and my personal opinion of where we should be headed wrt. data > model alignment. > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) > President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: HTML5 and RDFa 1.1 > http://manu.sporny.org/2012/html5-and-rdfa/ >
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2012 18:16:38 UTC