Re: Comments on rdf11-json

Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com> wrote on 08/12/2013 03:38:07 PM:

>     > 2/ It is strange to define this syntax exclusively in terms of the 

>     > serialization process. Would a serializer producing the same 
output,
>     > but with a different algorithm, be compliant ? How would I know if 
a
>     > parser is compliant -- or does the notion of compliant parser even 

>     > makes sense for this note ?
>     > 
>     
>     Good question. The JSON-LD folks ended up with two documents one 
>     that describes the syntax and the another that describes the 
>     transformation. Given that this is just a note we should try and 
>     keep it simple. 
>     Section 4 states that "an RDF/JSON document may be constructed using
>     the following algorithm " so this would  possibly allow for a 
>     different algorithm to be used. Yet, we somehow need to ensure the 
>     same mapping if we want to achieve any kind of interoperability.
> 
> The reason for the two documents was not to separate processing from
> syntax, but to separate API from syntax. As JSON-LD has an extensive
> API we felt that it should not complicate the syntax spec, and RDF 
> serialization/parsing depends on other aspects of the API. For a 
> format that does not include other API methods, i believe it's 
> appropriate for them to be included in a single document. Note that 
> most RDF formats only describe parsing, and leave serialization 
> issues as an exercise for the reader.

That makes sense. Interestingly, I've now realized that the only normative 
section the spec contains is the description of the algorithm to transform 
RDF into JSON/RDF.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group