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

Re: Updated JSON-LD spec to more closely align w/ RDF data model

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 08:56:04 -0400
Message-ID: <51D2CDE4.2040608@openlinksw.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 7/2/13 8:10 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> The thrust of the technical part of my comments was to base JSON-LD on 
> the concepts defined in RDF Concepts, not just to say so, so the 
> changes in Appendix A don't really address this part of my comments.  
> Appendix A still normatively defines everything about JSON-LD 
> independently from the definitions of RDF triples, graphs, and datasets.
>
> My proposal for Appendix A is given in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0126.html
> I very much prefer this sort of basis to the one in the current 
> editor's draft.
I've just read through Peter's suggestion.

For the record:  +1 .

Kingsley
>
> peter
>
> On 06/30/2013 11:18 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> David Booth, Peter S.,
>>
>> There is a new time-stamped JSON-LD editor's draft that attempts to
>> integrate all of the discussion related to RDF data model alignment
>> we've had over the past several weeks:
>>
>> http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld/20130630/
>>
>> Diff-marked version is here:
>>
>> http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld/20130630/diff-20130411.html
>>
>> Pay particular attention to the changes in these sections:
>>
>> http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld/20130630/diff-20130411.html#introduction 
>>
>>
>> http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld/20130630/diff-20130411.html#how-to-read-this-document 
>>
>>
>> http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld/20130630/diff-20130411.html#design-goals-and-rationale 
>>
>>
>> http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld/20130630/diff-20130411.html#data-model 
>>
>>
>> http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld/20130630/diff-20130411.html#relationship-to-rdf 
>>
>>
>> David, I think I've integrated everything we have consensus on in the
>> JSON-LD CG. The only outstanding issue is what to do with blank node
>> property skolemization.
>>
>> Peter, I hope the changes I made are in the right direction. I tried to
>> not change the terminology that we use throughout the spec too greatly
>> (because it would have negative cascading effects throughout all of the
>> JSON-LD specs), while making it very clear that the data model in
>> JSON-LD is an extension to the RDF data model.
>>
>> When I started editing the spec to apply each of your changes, my intent
>> was to keep iterating until Appendix C was removed.
>>
>> The removal of the blank nodes as graph labels change went just fine.
>>
>> The blank node as property remains, because it is a difference between
>> the two models
>>
>> Gregg thought that we could remove the sets/lists difference, but sets
>> and lists aren't talked about at all in the RDF data model (in RDF
>> Concepts). There is nothing to refer to and I couldn't think of a way of
>> papering over this difference.
>>
>> I tried to align JSON numbers and JSON booleans with XML Schema, but the
>> value spaces and lexical spaces don't match up. They are fundamentally
>> different, so it's one more thing that I couldn't get rid of in the
>> spec. There is now a note describing why this difference exists:
>>
>> """
>> NOTE
>> All JSON numbers and booleans can be mapped to XML Schema datatypes,
>> which are built-in datatypes in the RDF model. Non-decimal JSON numbers
>> map to xsd:integer and decimal numbers map to xsd:double. JSON numbers
>> are described as extensions to the RDF data model because they combine
>> the value space of xsd:integer and xsd:double into a single value space.
>> JSON booleans may be mapped to XML Schema using the xsd:boolean
>> datatype. JSON booleans are described as extensions to the RDF data
>> model because, while they have the same value space, they omit the
>> values of 0 and 1 from the lexical space.
>> """
>>
>> As I mentioned on the call last week, it'll probably take us a couple of
>> iterations to get something that both of you and the JSON-LD CG can live
>> with, so please provide feedback and we'll go from there. We will
>> discuss these changes on the call on Tuesday if either of you would like
>> to join and discuss further.
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen






Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:56:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:30 UTC