- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 08:56:04 -0400
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <51D2CDE4.2040608@openlinksw.com>
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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 12:56:28 UTC