New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
JSON-LD Syntax document MUST utilize the RDF definitions #168
Comments
_@iherman's reply:_ (My activity lead's hat put down) Without going into details, I think this may go a bit too far. I do understand the wish of the JSON-LD editors to use terminologies and presentations that are closer to the target audience of this document, who are primarily Web developers accessing RDF/Linked Data through their familiar JSON environment and who, for good or bad reasons, have some aversion v.a.v. core RDF. I agree that things should be aligned but I think 'There should be many more occurrences of "RDF" than "linked data"' would lead to this document be ignored by many whom we like to attract as possible users. I would wait for the outcome of the work that Manu and Richard have signed up for working out the details for such alignments. I agree that this issue should be put behind us before going to official LC, though. |
_@msporny's reply:_ On 10/19/2012 12:04 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
Good to hear. :)
These changes were requested by Richard Cyganiak and made to the spec
We're working on it (above). If you have specific changes, you should
I was hoping that "Appendix B: Relationship to Other Linked Data Formats
Could you point to a part of the current JSON-LD spec that asserts that
I believe that Richard is working on terminology alignment as we speak.
What do you mean by "JSON ordered constructs"? Do you mean the concept
There are a number of tests for @set and @list. I added an issue to I note that we don't have one for ensuring that a set isn't ordered, but
We support ordered arrays via @list. We support unordered sets via @set.
Which examples? How do we state that an example is RDF (since RDF is
Could you re-state this in a way that is actionable?
Number of times 'RDF' is mentioned in the spec: 59 Although, this is a bad metric for any spec, imho.
We're going around in circles. That's where we started two years ago. |
I want to see Section 3 defer to RDF concepts for all its base definitions. Then I want to see something that states in a normative section that JSON-LD
Huh? I'm not requiring that JSON-LD not allow bnodes. I'm requiring that
Yes.
Arrays can occur in lots of places in JSON documents, only some of which are
You have two JSON-LD document that use arrays and that have different
Again, there are arrays in other places in JSON-LD. In particular they are
Well, for example, the figure that was in the previous version of the document.
See my other messages.
Yeah, sorry. I used string quotes as a shorthand, when I should have said
Here is a particular example. The JSON-LD syntax doc says A node This is not about RDF in a strong way. It instead sort of mirrors the idea Being about RDF in a strong way would instead defer to the definitions in RDF |
_My reply:_
We already state at the beginning (section 1.2) that "In JSON, an array is an ordered sequence of zero or more values. An array is represented as square brackets surrounding zero or more values that are separated by commas. While JSON-LD uses the same array representation as JSON, the collection is unordered by default. While order is preserved in regular JSON arrays, it is not in regular JSON-LD arrays unless specific markup is provided (see 4.9 Sets and Lists)." Does that address your concern?
Aren't the tests toRdf-0012 and toRdf-0015 showing just that? The former ignores that array-order (by default), the latter serializes a list: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/blob/master/test-suite/tests/toRdf-0012-in.jsonld https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/blob/master/test-suite/tests/toRdf-0013-in.jsonld
Which figure are you referring to? |
As announced on the mailing list, I'll close this issue now. |
_Feedback from Peter F. Patel-Schneider_
I state that the JSON-LD Syntax document MUST not only align with RDF but MUST
also utilize the RDF definitions (particularly from RDF concepts). The vague
promises in the document are wholly inadequate; the change needs to happen
well before last call, as it is a major change.
For example, LSON-LD MUST be stated as a way of writing down RDF graphs (with
perhaps a simple generalization, although if linked data does not allow bnode
properties then I see no reason to allow bnode properties in LSON-LD).
JSON-LD nodes MUST be stated to be RDF nodes. JSON-LD data values MUST be
stated to be RDF literals and mention both plain and datayped literals. JSON
blank nodes MUST be stated to be RDF blank nodes. All the JSON ordered
constructs allowed in JSON-LD MUST be stated to be insignificant and there
MUST be a test that tests this, or MUST have a translation into something in
RDF that is ordered, and this translation should be prominent in the
document. Examples MUST be stated to be RDF, not linked data.
In essence, for JSON-LD to progress in the RDF WG, it should align to RDF, not
linked data! There should be many more occurrences of "RDF" than "linked
data". Consider the first bit of section 3.1 - it should say RDF in every
numbered point, except, perhaps, the last.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: