RE: Normative vs. non-normative in JSON-LD (Re: JSON-LD skipping CR?)

On Friday, March 29, 2013 11:46 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:

> I was looking at the document:
> 
> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld/
> 
> And I realized that almost the normative parts in the document are
> Appendix A, B, C, and E. Which is fine with me. However, Appendix C
> (Relationship to RDF) refers to RDF11-CONCEPTS non-normatively which I
> do not think is right.

It describes the differences to RDF. We do not rely on anything from
RDF11-CONCEPTS, so why do you think we need to reference it normatively in
this instance?


> It also refers to RDF-SCHEMA which should, at
> some point, be changed to RDF11-SCHEMA as a normative reference.

There doesn't even exist a FPWD for RDF11-SCHEMA, that's the reason why we
still reference the old version. AFAIK there are no differences between the
two version that would matter for JSON-LD <-> RDF so it shouldn't be a
problem.


> RDF11-CONCEPTS is also referenced from appendix E and again,
> it should be normative.

Yeah, in this instance I agree that it should be normative. 


> Bottom line: I believe JSON-LD should normatively refer to RDF11
> CONCEPTS and the upcoming 1.1 version of RDF Schemas. That, however,
> does not make it possible to turn it into a PR before the other
> documents are at least in CR. We can, of course, skip CR for JSON-LD
> and leave it on hold as a LC, but that would not buy us any time.
> (Although it would make it easier to process because we would have one
> admin hurdle with a transition call less.)

Hmm.. that's true. Maybe a viable alternative would be to specify how
fragment identifiers are used in appendix E which would allows us to keep
non-normative references!? Or do you think that's not an option? 


Cheers,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 12:07:06 UTC