Re: Metadata: bounding boxes

Rob,

you wrote:

NB My own preference is for ttl not json-ld in examples - its far easier to read, and i think JSON-LD is unlikely to be easily readable by either JSON or RDF communities - maybe a ttl equivalent should be provided for each example- which would reinforce the message that using RDF data model makes sense even if you want to pass data around using json serialisation.

In the schema:box example, ttl is not an option. Schema.org<http://Schema.org> descriptions in HTML are currently expected in RDFa, Microdata or JSON-LD, not ttl. ttl is great for usage when an RDF-centric view matters, but in other cases less so. Also, what is easier to read will depend on context and what people are familiar with.

Clemens