Closed lanthaler closed 11 years ago
Minor detail: Marios wrote:
1.S2 Merge properties (1) and (2) to one: "...it uses HTTP IRIs to name/identify things..." as they are essentially talking about the same thing.
I respectfully disagree. Having both of these properties in a Linked Data definition makes the pedagogical point that having URIs is not good enough; they need to be HTTP-resolvable URIs. I think JSON-LD was merely following/echoing TBL's LD definition here.
John S. Erickson, Ph.D. Director, Web Science Operations Tetherless World Constellation (RPI) http://tw.rpi.edu olyerickson@gmail.com Twitter & Skype: olyerickson
Suggestion 9.3.S1 has already been fixed in another commit.
@gkellogg @msporny @dlongley @niklasl I think I've addressed all uncontroversial concerns. The remaining suggestions in the list above need further discussion IMO. Maybe we can do it directly here in the issue tracker. Here is my opinion on the remaining items:
Syntax:
0.S0: Do nothing. We discussed this often enough already
1.S1: don't really care. Find "technique" most accurate
1.S2: -1, see also John Erickson comment
1.S3: would make sense, but IRI currently links to the Data model
1.S4: see 1.S2
1.S5: maybe just change sth like "expresses links to related data"
2.S1 & 2.S2: the whole section reads a bit weird at the moment. All "must" should be replaced with "is" IMO
3.S2: readers don't know yet that strings can have a "language attribute" at that point
3.S3: I think we should discuss this. "@graph
: Used to explicitly label a JSON-LD graph is misleading"
5.S3: Just confuses readers
A.S1: Data shouldn't be lost. It will be output by the toRDF algo and can then be further filtered
C.S1: -1, we discussed this several times
API:
1.S1: API spec is not the right place to do so 1.S3: this is done to reflect the language of the JSON RFC
I have taken @lanthaler's thoughts on the JSON-LD Syntax document, added mine into the mix, and tried to accurately represent the consensus over the last few weeks. I think all changes that need to be made have been made to the JSON-LD Syntax document:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0038.html
@lanthaler, if you could make the rest of the appropriate edits to the JSON-LD API document we can close this issue and do an official response to Marios.
My thoughts on the remaining API issues are aligned with @lanthaler - so +1 to what he said:
1.S1: API spec is not the right place to do so 1.S3: this is done to reflect the language of the JSON RFC
@lanthaler, if you could make the rest of the appropriate edits to the JSON-LD API document we can close this issue and do an official response to Marios.
I think there's nothing left, or is there?
We just all need to agree on 1.S1 and 1.S3. I think we do. The boxes aren't checked. I didn't feel that I should do so since you, Dave, and Gregg know more about the API spec than I do at this point. Bottom line: If there is no disagreement on 1.S1 and 1.S3, we're done.
One of us needs to respond to Marios, point-by-point, about the API spec like I did here (for the Syntax spec): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0038.html
Once we do that, we'll do an official response referencing both e-mails about Syntax and API and we can close the issue (in both issue trackers) if there are no objections from him.
I’ve just responded point-by-point to the comments about the API spec:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0045.html
@msporny, will you send out the official response?
Agree with @msporny's comments on API 1.S1 and 1.S3, but I think we're done anyway.
Closing the issue here on GitHub. We have a duplicate in the RDF issue tracker which will be used to send the official response.
_Feedback by Marios Meimaris on behalf of the Government Linked Data (GLD) Working Group_
This is a duplicate of RDF-ISSUE-135. The reason why I also created a GitHub issue is to keep track of related commits and be able to create a checkboxes for each raised point.
Hello all,
On behalf of the Government Linked Data (GLD) Working Group, I am sending out two brief reviews for the JSON-LD and the JSON-LD Processing Algorithms and API specifications. We are sorry for the late feedback.
Overall, the documents are well written, concise and well-structured. Included in this email are some minor editorial fixes and suggestions**that should benefit readability.
Congratulations to the people that worked on these!
Note: The structure of these reviews follows the original docs' sections. Suggestions are written in the form "[section number].S[suggestion number]".
JSON-LD 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-json-ld-20130411/)
_0. Abstract_
_1. Introduction_
_2. Design Goals and Rationale_
_3. Terminology_
_5. Basic Concepts_
_A. Data Model_
_C. Relationship to RDF_
End of JSON-LD 1.0 Review
JSON-LD 1.0 Processing Algorithms and API (http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-json-ld-api-20130411/)
Overall, the document is concise, well structured and thorough. I've taken the liberty to point out some really minor grammar and typo fixes.
_0. Abstract_
_4. General Terminology_
_8.3 IRI Compaction_
_8.5 Value Compaction_
_9.2 Node Map Generation_
_9.3 Generate Blank Node Identifier_
_10.1 Convert to RDF Algorithm_
_10.6 Data Round Tripping_
END OF JSON-LD 1.0 Processing Algorithms and API review
Kind regards, Marios Meimaris