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

Re: RDF 1.1 Primer

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 19:29:43 +0100
Message-ID: <52A0C617.9010509@vu.nl>
To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@bbc.co.uk>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: 'Pierre-Antoine Champin' <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 05-12-13 17:12, Yves Raimond wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 19:26 +0100, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 04, 2013 6:21 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>> [...]
>>> It's now in mercurial - and an additional one with a remote
>>> context, which makes the JSON pretty nice to look at.
>>
>> There's a typo in example 11, line 2. It has to be @context (the
>> "@" is missing).
>>
>
> Fixed now - thank you.
>
>> I think it would be much more inviting if you would use example 11
>> as first example in section C.2 JSON-LD, then show the context and
>> mention that it can also be embedded directly in the document and
>> that prefixes can be used the same way as in Turtle and use the
>> multiple-graphs example to illustrate it. I've cleaned up the
>> examples and the context and attached all of them in a single
>> file.
>>
>>
>
> That's a very good point Markus - I think it depends where these
> examples are in the document. If they stay where they are, as
> Pierre-Antoine, says, then I think it makes sense in the context of
> the other examples. If it's earlier in the document (i.e. section 5)
> then it makes sense. I'd be quite up for that (it originally was
> there, actually) - Guus, what do you think?

Yes, I can see the advantage of having a JSON-LD example in Sec. 5. The 
rationale for moving the other examples to an appendix was to keep the 
main text as short as possible (and I don't want readers to have to go 
first through a lot of syntax before getting to Secs. 6-7). For me this 
argument is still more important.

But what about this proposal: we extend the appendix a bit, and discuss 
the JSON-LD examples in the same way as the Turtle/Trig examples: 
explaining line-line-line how it works. In this way the JSON-LD appendix 
becomes a mini-primer for JSON-LD. Come to think of it: we might want to 
do that for RDFa and N-Triples/Quads as ell.

Guus






>
> Best, Yves
>
>>> One quick question - any reason for mapping uri to @id instead of
>>> just reusing @id?
>>
>> As Pierre-Antoine already said it has advantages when working with
>> the data but I nevertheless think we probably should stick to @id
>> and @type in the primer as these are really advanced features.
>>
>>
>> -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
>
>
>
> ----------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and
> any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which
> are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have
> received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use,
> copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it
> and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors
> e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your
> consent to this. -----------------------------
>
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 18:30:14 UTC

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