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: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 12:41:32 +0200
To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <052f01ce78a3$0d9d0640$28d712c0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Thursday, July 04, 2013 11:51 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> On 07/04/2013 12:59 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> >> 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 ..

OK, that's at least a starting point.


> > 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.

The terms which don't have a 1:1 mapping to RDF Concepts are:

 - JSON-LD value: needed for native types (maps more or less to literal)

 - typed value: a literal which is not a language-tagged string
   (unfortunately no definition for this exists in Concepts, it should
   probably be added; sending a separate mail in a minute)

 - list: not mentioned in Concepts at all because they are not part
   of the RDF data model but realized using a vocabulary

All the others are exactly the same as in RDF Concepts so I can't really understand how you can say that it is "not being defined in terms of RDF Datasets"!?


> Further, there is now generalized RDF Datasets, which
> includes the addition.

OK, you seem to argue that the difference stemming from native JSON types for booleans, numbers and arrays (lists) don't matter. Is that correct?



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 10:42:06 UTC

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