Re: JSON-LD in examples invalid due to comments

I think that using properties that do not have the type in their domain is 
neither transparent nor workable, aside from the problems related to 
misspellings and new properties.  This approach might be better than using 
duplicate keys, but only marginally.

Adding comments to JSON is a non-starter, as well, as far as I can tell.

One approach that appears workable to me would be to add a comment property to 
Thing (although I'm not too happy about suggesting having a comment property 
in general).  However, why not just use "description" for this purpose?


Of course, having comments that just reiterate content is a bad idea in 
general.  Either the comment correctly reiterates the content, in which case 
it is useless, or it incorrectly reiterates the content, in which case it is 
harmful.   It would be better to just remove such comments.  As the comments 
in question appear to be of one or the other of these forms, there is a clear 
way forward here, with no downside.


As a general point, I would think that all the examples in schema.org should 
be run through several parsers set to strict validation settings to ensure 
that the examples are not syntactically incorrect.


peter


On 11/28/2013 06:20 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 2:48 AM, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@unibw.de> wrote:
>> Just my two cents: Would it be completely unthinkable to introduce a syntax for comments in JSON and JSON-LD?
> It's outside the scope of JSON-LD to change the base JSON syntax, but if this were supported in JSON, JSON-LD would pick it up automatically.
>
> Alternatively, using an undefined key, such as @comment, would work transparently.
>
> <script type="application/ld+json">
> {
>    "@comment": "John listened to Pink with Steve at Anna's appartment on his iPod.",
>    "@context": "http://schema.org",
>    "@type": "ListenAction",
>
>>> On Nov 28, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've just realized that all (?) JSON-LD examples in schema.org are invalid
>>> since they include comments. Just as JSON, JSON-LD doesn't support comments.
>>>
>>> Example 1 of http://schema.org/Action for instance begins as follows:
>>>
>>> <script type="application/ld+json">
>>>    // John listened to Pink with Steve at Anna's appartment on his iPod.
>>> {
>>>    "@context": "http://schema.org",
>>>    "@type": "ListenAction",
>>>    ...
>>>
>>> The second line turns this into invalid JSON(-LD). It should thus be
>>> rewritten to
>>>
>>> <script type="application/ld+json">
>>> {
>>>    "@context": "http://schema.org",
>>>    "@type": "ListenAction",
>>>    ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Would it be possible to remove those comments at the beginning of all
>>> examples? I fear that otherwise a lot of people will adapt this style which
>>> will lead to severe interoperability problems.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Markus
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Markus Lanthaler
>>> @markuslanthaler
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> martin hepp

Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 15:16:11 UTC