Re: JSON-LD in examples invalid due to comments

I don't see why we wouldn't want the comments in the graph.

guha


On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>wrote:

> On Nov 28, 2013, at 7:15 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <
> pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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, there is rdfs:comment, but I think the point was to have a
> syntactic comment, not something that becomes part of the data model.
>
> The ship has sailed on JSON (and JSON-LD); however, apublisher may
> generate JSON-LD with unmapped keys and use as a commenting convention, but
> care must be taken that it isn't accidentally mapped through use of @vocab.
>
> > 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.orgshould be run through several parsers set to strict validation settings to
> ensure that the examples are not syntactically incorrect.
>
> Absolutely, many examples, microdata, RDFa and JSON-LD are replete with
> syntax errors; no excuse for this with modern tooling.
>
> Gregg
>
> > 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
> >
>
>