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 17:07:17 +0200
To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <05ad01ce78c8$2dd79ae0$8986d0a0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Thursday, July 04, 2013 3:28 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> On 07/04/2013 05:02 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Huh?  What in ReSpec prevents pointing at definitions in different documents?
> It appears to me that class="externalDFN" is part of ReSpec precisely to
> permit pointing at external definitions.
>
> > Would you like to see a "as defined in RDF Concepts" everywhere?
> 
> That would be somewhat better.  Even better would be to say something
> like
> "datasets, graphs, triples, nodes, blank nodes, ... are as defined in
> RDF
> Concepts"  (with appropriate pointers, of course).   Even more better
> would be
> to use class="externalDFN" and point directly to the base definitions
> in the
> body of the document.

OK, please have a look at

   http://json-ld.org /spec/latest/json-ld/#data-model

I've now linked all definitions in the data model to the corresponding definitions in RDF Concepts. Does this make the relationship clear enough? 


> > 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.
>
> And I'm fine with a diff to RDF's data model.

I know that you are fine with a diff. The question is whether anything going beyond a diff would be acceptable for you.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 15:07:49 UTC

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