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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:03:55 -0700
Message-ID: <51D9916B.4000809@gmail.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

On 07/07/2013 08:43 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> 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"?

What are the extensions (over generalized RDF Datasets)?  In fact, the 
"extension" should be taken out of the preceeding sentence. (Yes, this 
requires generalized RDF datasets.)

>
>
>> 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.

My view is that there needs to be a clear distinction between what is 
normative and what isn't.   Simply leaving out "normative" isn't adequately 
clear in this case, as far as I am concerned.

>
>
>> - 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

Really? Arbiitrarily big?

Personally I would prefer xsd:integer, but I thought that the idea was to 
reflect the JSON (although JSON really only has double-precision floating point).
>
>
>> - 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.

Why?
>
>
>> - 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.

My (second-choice) view is that this appendix should be an informative way of 
showing that JSON-LD *is* RDF, without going into any of the low-level 
details.   Thus there should be at least a gloss on how all the bits and 
pieces of JSON-LD *are* RDF, particularly the bits that look as if they are 
different from RDF.
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>

peter
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2013 16:04:37 UTC

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