Re: JSON-LD in examples invalid due to comments

Sorry for being slow, but could you give me the concrete example?

guha


On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:

>  Here's a use case. There are times when I want to publish data that
> refers to a graph node by its opaque URI, but I don't want to republish
> data that describes it. In cases like those, I might want to stick its name
> in an adjacent comment for casual readability.
>
>  Jeff
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 3:18 PM, "Guha" <guha@google.com> wrote:
>
>   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
>> >
>>
>>
>