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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 02:50:33 -0700
Message-ID: <51D54569.60802@gmail.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 07/04/2013 12:59 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:34 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> On 07/03/2013 10:33 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 7:23 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>> A graph in JSON-LD should be a generalized RDF graph.
>>> But it is not. JSON-LD has built-in lists (because JSON has arrays) -
>>> mapping them to rdf:List is trivial but nevertheless they are part of
>>> the data model in JSON-LD. The situation is similar for numbers and
>>> booleans.
>>>
>>> We can't ignore the JSON in JSON-LD.
>> I believe that somehow you are missing the idea of the "should" in my
>> statement.
>>
>> My changes to Appendix A were to turn this "should" into reality.
> In your proposal you write
>
>      JSON-LD is a serialization format for Linked Data based on JSON.
>      It is therefore important to distinguish between the syntax of
>      JSON-LD, which is defined by JSON [...] and the underlying data model.
>
>      The data model underlying JSON-LD is RDF datasets as defined in
>      RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax [RDF-CONCEPTS], with the
>      following additions: ...
>
> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0126.html]
>
> If it has additions, then it is not the same IMO. Do we agree on that?

Sure, not the same, but ..
>
>
> I also can't really see a substantial difference from what the spec currently says:
>
>     JSON-LD is a serialization format for Linked Data based on JSON.
>     It is therefore important to distinguish between the syntax,
>     which is defined by JSON in [RFC4627], and the data model which
>     is an extension of the RDF data model [RDF11-CONCEPTS]. To ease
>     understanding for developers unfamiliar with the RDF model, the
>     following normative summary is provided: ...

... there is a vast difference between being defined in terms of RDF Datasets 
plus (now) one small addition and not being defined in terms of RDF Datasets, 
even if the intent is to make things work out the same.   Further, there is 
now generalized RDF Datasets, which includes the addition.
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>

peter

PS:  And de-emphasizing the connection only makes the difference much more 
important.
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 09:51:11 UTC

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