W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2013

RE: Comments on rdf11-json

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:48:12 +0200
To: "'Arnaud Le Hors'" <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "'Pierre-Antoine Champin'" <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Cc: <pierre.antoine.champin@gmail.com>, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009f01ce983c$857c5220$9074f660$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:12 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Bonjour Pierre-Antoine, 
> I've now gone through all your comments and updated the draft
> accordingly. See below for further details. 
>
> pierre.antoine.champin@gmail.com wrote on 07/02/2013 04:21:38 PM:
>
> > NOTE TO JSON-LD PEOPLE: there is a question for you at the very end 
> > of this message; you might want to read the last part "Meta-remark" 
> > /NOTE
> 
> I haven't seen any response from our JSON-LD experts. 

My response is here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jul/0027.html


[...]

Internet media type: 

> Per Andy's suggestion, I got rid of most of that section and
> replaced it with a much simpler tex.

Why is that appendix normative?


>> Meta-remark:
>>
>> It would be nice if, instead of proposing an alterative format to 
>> JSON-LD we could propose a controlled subset of JSON-LD that meets 
>> the requirements that this format addresses. 
>> 
>> I understand that this format 1) has some advantages over JSON-LD 
>> (less variability, easy access to a given triple...), and 2) is 
>> already deployed in some applications. I'm not sure which one, of 1 
>> or 2, is the strongest argument for publishing this note. 
>
> 1 is definitely what motivates the use of RDF/JSON by some of my
colleagues. 
>
>> If this is
>> 1, why not propose something with the same advantages, by compatible
>> with JSON-LD?
>
>> For exemple, instead of
>
>> { "http://example.org/S": { 
>>     "http://example.org/P": [ 
>>       { "type": "uri", 
>>         "value": "http://example.org/O"
>>       }, 
>>       { "type": "bnode", 
>>         "value": "_:b1"
>>       }, 
>>       { "type": "literal", 
>>         "value": "a literal"
>>         "lang": "a literal"
>>       }, 
>>       { "type": "literal", 
>>         "value": "a literal"
>>         "datatype": http://example.org/DT"
>>       } 
>>     ] 
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> one could write
>> 
>> { "http://example.org/S": {
>>     "@id": "http://example.org/S",
>>     "http://example.org/P": [
>>       { "@id": "http://example.org/O"
>>       },
>>       { "@id": "_:b1"
>>       },
>>       { "@value": "a literal",
>>         "@language": "en"
>>       },
>>       { "@value": "a literal",
>>         "@datatype": "http://example.org/DT"
>>         }
>>     ]
>>   }
>> }
>>
>> As far as I can tell, this is valid JSON-LD, provided with the 
>> appropriate @context -- I would require a confirmation form JSON-LD 
>> experts, though... 
>
> I'd like to hear it too.

I did reply to that question already (see above). The only thing that's not
supported is the top-level node index (the "http://example.org/S":). Other
than that, everything works as expected. If there's just one top-level node,
you won't have a problem because there's no need for an index. If you have
more than one top-level node, you can index them by using a blank node
property which is ignored by default when converting to RDF:


{
  "@context": {
    "data": { "@id": "_:data", "@container": "@index" }
  },
  "data": {
    "http://example.org/S": {
      "@id": "http://example.org/S",
      "http://example.org/P": [
        { "@id": "http://example.org/O" },
        { "@id": "_:b1" },
        { "@value": "a literal", "@language": "en" },
        { "@value": "a literal", "@type": "http://example.org/DT" }
      ]
    }
  }
}

Result when converting to N-Quads: http://bit.ly/14tPJLo


> I even think that the JSON-LD subset could be made to look even 
> closer to the original format, for example by stating in the 
> implicit context that "lang" is equivalent to "@language", and 
> "datatype" to "@datatype" (but "value is a problem, sometimes 
> meaning "@id"; and sometimes "@value"). 

Right


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 15:48:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:31 UTC