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

Re: RDF 1.1 Primer

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 21:38:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+OuRR_Si96XJHGBqNP-KioNZJFpKPzd5hWq7NqeueTj7OnPkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>wrote:

> > * section 3 : unlinke Pat, I'm ok with the "informal" examples, but it
> > should probably be made clearer that it is what they are, informal. This
> > is probably an occasion to present the notion of abstract/concrete
> syntax.
> > ** may be the pointy brackets should be replaced by quotes, making the
> > terms less IRI-like, and so more obviously informal
> We'll make it much more explicit that this is informal. I'm a bit
> hesitant to talk about "abstract syntax".

I understand your hesitation; I won't fight for this :)

> > And furthermore, it is confusing afterwards to use "Leonardo da
> > Vinci"@it as an example, as it does not appear in the example. Or should
> > it?
> No, ie doesn't and would prefer not to add. Therefore changed the
> example to the French version of Leonardo's name.

fine with me

> > * section 6  Semantics : not sure what you plan to do with the
> > ex:Marriage example, but I'm affraid this is a very exotic feature that
> > will not appeal to many readers. A more interesting feature (IMO) would
> > be to show how a resource can be treated both as a class and as an
> instance.
> Hmm, marriage is the standard example in all DB 101 courses (because the
> relation has properties of its won).

Oh, I had not recognized a classical example.
Still, I would not name the property ex:Marriage, but rather ex:spouseOf,
or something like that.

> But I agree a class/instance
> example would be more interesting. Will mark this as a todo issue.

My own typical example is

  ex:Jumbo rdf:type ex:Elephant.
  ex:Elephant rdf:type ex:Species.
  ex:Species rdf:type rdfs:Class.

> * Annex A : I didn't check if all the examples provided the same data as
> > the Turtle (resp. Trig) example, but that would be a good idea. It seems
> > that the multi-graph JSON-LD does not contain the triples from the
> > default graph.
> Well, it was the intention that it should produce exactly the same
> triples. Will check.
> >
> > * Annex A.2 : I think a third example, using "simple" JSON with a
> > slightly more complex @context, would nicely illustrate how JSON-LD can
> > leverage "idiomatic" JSON to RDF. If you think that is a good idea, I
> > volunteer to write that example.
> OK, thanks for the offer!

It should be noted that the @context would usually be provided as an IRI,
or even hidden in the HTTP headers, leaving only the "nice" JSON to be seen.

We could go further (but maybe this is too far for an annex of the
primer?), explaining that the server may even provide no @context at all
(as most web API currently do), but the @context could be built-in
knowledge of the client, allowing legacy JSON data to be "seen" as RDF.



Received on Sunday, 1 December 2013 20:39:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:36 UTC