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: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 11:41:27 +0100
Message-ID: <51D55157.6000408@apache.org>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 03/07/13 22:38, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> 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.
>
> I don't consider JSON-LD lists as being conceptually any different that Turtle Lists; these are artifacts of the serialization, and not the underlying data model.

Are all JSON-LD lists transformed to RDF lists by the 
json-ld-api/#list-to-rdf-conversion?  It's not clear -- it says "a list 
may be represented using the @list keyword as follows:" -- not a RFC-MAY 
but only a "may" nevertheless).


Suggestion: clarify as to whether there are other ways or not. E.g. "a 
list is represented using the @list keyword as follows:")


The problem is about syntax and which data model is which.
This confusion is manifest by the fact that the documents are split 
Serialization / Algorithms where the document entitles "serialization" 
includes an appendix on "Data Model".

A separate document on "Data Model" would have been good.  Making that 
it not-an-appendix, but still at the end of the document, might help.

We have

1/ syntax : JSON, with additional rulesas given by the JSON-LD grammar.

2/ JSON-LD data model - specific to JSON-LD and only JSON-LD

3/ RDF abstract data model.  JSON and JSON-LD independent.  Output of 
json-ld-api/#rdf-conversion-algorithms.

	Andy
>
> Gregg
>
>> We can't ignore the JSON in JSON-LD.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Markus Lanthaler
>> @markuslanthaler
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 10:41:58 UTC

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