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 14:02:39 +0200
To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <055d01ce78ae$6289be40$279d3ac0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Thursday, July 04, 2013 1:34 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Appendix A defines nothing in terms of anything related to RDF.  Its
> "normative" summary defines default graph, named graph, graph, edge,
> properties, nodes, IRI, blank node, blank node identifier, JSON-LD
> value, typed value, language-tagged string, and list and none of
> these definitions mention anything about RDF.

They are definitions (bold & italic) because we use those terms throughout the document and that's the way how you reference them with ReSpec. Would you like to see a "as defined in RDF Concepts" everywhere?


> It is totally unnecessary to have all these redefinitions, even when
> there were real differences between the JSON-LD data model and
> definitions from RDF Concepts.

For someone with an RDF background that's true. For everyone else it isn't. Sure, we could just require that everyone reads and understands RDF Concepts first but we wanted to avoid that.

Would including a non-normative summary of the data model in the same style be OK? I'm fine with almost everything that isn't just a diff to RDF's data model.


> Consider, for example, the way that generalized RDF Datasets are now
> defined
> in RDF Concepts.   The JSON-LD data model could have been defined in an
> analogous manner all along, building on previous definitions instead of
> redoing them.

If all the definitions such a definition relies on are in the same document it is indeed trivial.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 12:03:12 UTC

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