Re: Updated JSON-LD spec to more closely align w/ RDF data model (RDF-ISSUE-132)

I suppose so, but I would have preferred to have Appendix C fixed up.

peter

On 07/10/2013 09:12 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 5:55 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> On 07/10/2013 08:14 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:01 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>> On 07/10/2013 12:24 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:34 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>>>>
>>>> I would like to see the first part of Appendix C adjusted to match
>>>> Appendix A,
>>>> something like:
>>>>
>>>> JSON-LD is a concrete RDF syntax
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-concrete-rdf-syntax> as
>>>> described in
>>>> [RDF11-CONCEPTS <http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#bib-RDF11-
>>>> CONCEPTS>].
>>>> Hence, a JSON-LD document is an RDF document and a JSON document and
>>>> correspondingly represents an instance of an extended RDF data
>> model,
>>>> namely
>>>> generalized RDF datasets [link]. The extension to the RDF data model
>>>> is:
>>>>
>>>>     * In JSON-LD properties
>>>>       <http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#dfn-property> can be
>> IRIs
>>>>       <http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#dfn-iri> or blank
>> nodes
>>>>       <http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#dfn-blank-node>
>> whereas in
>>>>       properties (predicates) in RDF datasets have to be IRIs
>>>>       <http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#dfn-iri>.
>>>>
>>>> Summarized, these differences mean that JSON-LD is capable of
>>>> serializing any
>>>> RDF graph or dataset and most, but not all, JSON-LD documents can be
>>>> directly
>>>> interpreted as RDF datasets. It is possible to work around this
>>>> restriction,
>>>> when interpreting JSON-LD as RDF, by transforming blank nodes
>>>> <http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#dfn-blank-node> used as
>>>> properties
>>>> <http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#dfn-property> to IRIs
>>>> <http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#dfn-iri>, minting new
>> "Skolem
>>>> IRIs"
>>>> as per Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization> of
>>>> [RDF11-CONCEPTS <http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#bib-RDF11-
>>>> CONCEPTS>].
>>>> The normative algorithms for interpreting JSON-LD as RDF and
>>>> serializing RDF
>>>> as JSON-LD are specified in the JSON-LD Processing Algorithms and
>> API
>>>> specification [JSON-LD-API
>>>> <http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/#bib-JSON-LD-API>].
>>> Fixed in https://github.com/json-ld/json-
>> ld.org/commit/9855519a1cd78f45b721635857c28fdc865d353a
>>> Live at http://json-ld.org.local/spec/latest/json-ld/#relationship-
>> to-rdf
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Markus Lanthaler
>>> @markuslanthaler
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hmm.  The changes there don't correspond very closely with my suggested
>> changes.   However, this is not something that I care enough about to
>> pursue
>> much further.
> Sorry, that was not intentional. I didn't realized that the removal of the other two bullet points was intentional. Since you say you don't care enough I would prefer to leave them in as other people might care and that's what we've come up with before (and had consensus).
>
> So, do these changes and the "fractional part" clarification as discussed on today's telecon (which I already implemented in the spec [1]) address your concerns so that we can close ISSUE-132 [2]?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Markus
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/commit/70db9f9e3593b6cc5957be7534bca655577de53c
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/132
>
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 16:15:54 UTC