RE: Updated JSON-LD spec to more closely align w/ RDF data model

On Sunday, July 07, 2013 3:41 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> The current version is looking much better.  The important changes are
> that the summary is no longer labelled as normative and there are links
> back to RDF Concepts.  Here are some *changes* to the Appendix that
> make the missing connections to RDF and further clarify some points.

Great to hear that!


> 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].    *The precise details of how JSON-LD
> documents represent the RDF data model are given in Appendix C.*

Wouldn't it be more precise to say "The precise details of how JSON-LD extends the RDF data model are given in Appendix C"?


> To ease understanding for developers unfamiliar with
> the RDF model, the following *informative* summary is provided:

Could live with that "informative" even though I would prefer to leave it out.


> - A JSON-LD value is a string *(which is a shorthand for a typed value with
>    type xsd:string)*, a number *(with integral numbers being shorthand for
>    typed values with type xsd:long and other numbers being shorthand for
>    typed values with type xsd:double)*, true or false *(which are shorthands
>    for typed values with type xsd:boolean)*, a typed value, or a
>    language-tagged string.

OK.. it's xsd:integer not xsd:long though


> - A typed value consists of a value, which is a string, and a type, which is
>    an IRI.  *Most types in typed values are XML Schema 1.1 Datatypes
>    [pointer to document].*

I would really prefer to leave this out.


> - A list is an sequence of zero or more IRIs, blank nodes, and JSON-LD
>    values.  *JSON-LD lists are shorthands for RDF list structures
>    [informative pointer to RDF Semantics D.3?].*

If really necessary I could live with this but would prefer to not state this here but perhaps mention it in Appendix C. I would like to hear more opinions. Richard disagreed and I think Manu wouldn't be too happy this either.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Sunday, 7 July 2013 15:44:04 UTC