Re: JSON-LD and multiple values

Melvin:
I might not have made my point clear: This is not a problem of not being able to represent an RDF structure in JSON-LD, but that 

1. the correct pattern in JSON-LD (list/array) is different from the pattern in Turtle, RDFa, RDF/XML etc. (repetition of the same property) and
2. that naively using the pattern from the other syntaxes fails *silently* in JSON-LD (just the last value is recognized).

Try my two examples in the Google Structured Data Testing tool and you will see the difference.

Martin

-----------------------------------
martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp







> On 09 Jun 2015, at 11:23, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9 June 2015 at 10:59, mfhepp@gmail.com <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Gregg,
> dear Manu:
> 
> I think there is a need for clarifying the proper use of multiple values for the same property in JSON-LD because if I understand it properly, the behavior differs from any other RDF syntax and Microdata (see [1]), as you CANNOT simply repeat a property with different values, as in any other RDF syntax, like so
> 
> I thought all RDF can be converted to JSON LD?
> 
> 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 as described in RDF 1.1 Concepts [RDF11-CONCEPTS].
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#relationship-to-rdf
>  
> 
> 
> <script type="application/ld+json">
> {
>   "@context": "http://schema.org",
>   "@type": "Offer",
>   "businessFunction" : "http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#Repair",
>   "businessFunction" : "http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#Sell"
> 
> }
> </script>
> 
> but instead must use a LIST of values, like so:
> 
> 
> <script type="application/ld+json">
> {
>   "@context": "http://schema.org",
>   "@type": "Offer",
>   "businessFunction": ["http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#Repair", "http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#Sell" ]
> 
> }
> </script>
> 
> The Google Structured Data Testing Tool shows only the value for the last use of the same property name, but in complex data structures, this will be easy to overlook.
> 
> We should highlight this prominently (and review all of our examples in schema.org), because otherwise people will have a hard time understanding why only part of their data is understood.
> 
> In particular, product feature markup with many usages of "additionalProperty" will be prone to this.
> 
> Best
> 
> Martin
> 
> [1] http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/81080/using-productontology-org-to-add-multiple-types/81081#81081
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------
> martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
> mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2015 09:36:07 UTC