Re: JSON-LD - experimenting with universal Linked Data markup for Web Services

On Sat, 29 May 2010 21:06:31 -0400
Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/specs/source/json-ld/

The document at several times uses the term "unambiguous", but I don't
think it is. For example, it says:

    In order to differentiate between plain text and IRIs, the < and >
    are used around IRIs.

But what about plain text that happens to start with "<" and end with
">"?

For example:

    {
      "dc:abstract" : "A discussion of the abbreviations in HTML.",
      "dc:title" : "<abbr> versus <acronym>"
    }

Also, if you imagine the following two RDFa snippets, with different
meanings, they seem to have the same representation in JSON-LD:

    <!-- snippet 1 -->
    <div typeof="">
      <span property="dc:modified"
            datatype="xsd:dateTime">2010-05-29T14:17:39+02:00</span>
    </div>

    <!-- snippet 2 -->
    <div typeof="">
      <span property="dc:modified">2010-05-29T14:17:39+02:00</span>
      <span property="dc:modified">^^xsd:dateTime</span>
    </div>

Both are represented as:

    {
      "dc:modified" : ["2010-05-29T14:17:39+02:00", "^^xsd:dateTime"]
    }

This could possibly be addressed by representing datatyped values like
this (i.e. similarly to RDF/JSON):

    {
      "dc:modified" : {
        "value"    : "2010-05-29T14:17:39+02:00",
        "datatype" : "xsd:dateTime",
        }
    }

A solution like that would also handle the edge case of plain text
literals that begin with '<' and end with '>'. You could insist that
whenever a plain text value begins and ends like that, it must be
written out in "longhand" form:

    {
      "dc:abstract" : "A discussion of the abbreviations in HTML.",
      "dc:title" : { "value":"<abbr> versus <acronym>" }
    }

How language tags are represented is not mentioned in the document, but
they could perhaps be handled similarly to datatypes.

> Just getting some thoughts that Mark and I have been exploring over
> the past two weeks down. No intention of publishing via this WG at the
> moment... perhaps via HTML WG? or WebApps? Or working with industry to
> see how it works in the field and then bringing it into W3C.

It seems pretty far out of scope for HTMLWG. Perhaps SWIG?

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>

Received on Sunday, 30 May 2010 08:58:22 UTC