--- a/spec/latest/json-ld-api/index.html Tue Apr 02 14:40:14 2013 +0200
+++ b/spec/latest/json-ld-api/index.html Tue Apr 02 14:56:54 2013 +0200
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@
// extraCSS: [],
issueBase: "https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/",
+ // atRiskBase: "https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/",
// editors, add as many as you like
// only "name" is required
@@ -127,14 +128,6 @@
is an expectation that they could be used in a production system within the
next six months.</p>
- <p class="issue">It is important for readers to understand that the scope of this
- document is currently under debate and new features may be added to the specification.
- Existing features may be modified heavily or removed entirely from the
- specification upon further review and feedback from the broader community.
- This is a work in progress and publication as a Working Draft
- does not require that all Working Group members agree on the content of the
- document.</p>
-
<p>There are a number of ways that one may participate in the development of
this specification:</p>
@@ -915,13 +908,18 @@
<code class="error"><a href="#idl-def-JsonLdErrorCode.invalid-local-context">invalid local context</a></code>
error has been detected and processing is aborted.</li>
<li>If <i>context</i> has an <code>@base</code> key:
- <p class="issue atrisk" data-number="223" title="Feature at risk">This feature is
- at risk as the fact that a document may have multiple base IRIs
- is potentially confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether
- relative IRIs are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether
- the empty string should be used to explicitly specify that there isn't
- a base IRI, which could be used to ensure that relative IRIs remain
- relative when expanding.</p>
+ <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="1" title="@base keyword">
+ <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
+ this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
+ <a href="mailto:public-rdf-comments@w3.org">public-rdf-comments@w3.org</a>.
+ For the current status see
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
+ <p>This feature is at risk as the fact that a document may have multiple base
+ IRIs is potentially confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether
+ relative IRIs are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether the
+ empty string should be used to explicitly specify that there isn't a base IRI,
+ which could be used to ensure that relative IRIs remain relative when expanding.</p>
+ </div>
<ol class="algorithm">
<li>Initialize <i>value</i> to the value associated with the
<code>@base</code> key.</li>
@@ -3069,13 +3067,19 @@
<p>This algorithms converts a JSON-LD document to an <tref>RDF dataset</tref>.</p>
- <p class="issue atrisk" data-number="217" title="Feature at risk">RDF does not
- currently allow a <tref>blank node identifier</tref> to be used as
- <tref>graph name</tref> or <tref>property</tref>. Implementations might
- convert such <tref title="blank node identifier">blank node identifiers</tref>
- to <tref title="IRI">IRIs</tref> by minting new "Skolem IRIs" as per
- <cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization">Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs</a></cite>
- of [[RDF11-CONCEPTS]].</p>
+ <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="3" title="Allow blank nodes to be used as graph name or property">
+ <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
+ this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
+ <a href="mailto:public-rdf-comments@w3.org">public-rdf-comments@w3.org</a>.
+ For the current status see
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
+ <p>RDF does not currently allow a <tref>blank node identifier</tref> to be
+ used as <tref>graph name</tref> or <tref>property</tref>. Implementations
+ might convert such <tref title="blank node identifier">blank node identifiers</tref>
+ to <tref title="IRI">IRIs</tref> by minting new "Skolem IRIs" as per
+ <cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization">Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs</a></cite>
+ of [[RDF11-CONCEPTS]].</p>
+ </div>
<section class="informative">
<h3>Overview</h3>
@@ -3281,16 +3285,23 @@
<tref>default graph</tref> and zero or more
<tref title="named graph">named graphs</tref> into a JSON-LD document.</p>
- <p class="issue atrisk" title="Feature at risk">In the interest of space and
- simplicity, the steps necessary for handling lists of lists have been omitted.
- Such lists and their elements must, recursively, be handled like other lists.
- Lists of lists can, however, not be represented in JSON-LD using <code>@list</code>;
- they have to be represented as a set of interlinked node objects using RDF's
- <code>rdf:first</code> and <code>rdf:rest</code> properties.
- <em>NOTE:</em> this is an at-risk feature. The Working Group might either require
- handling of lists-of-lists or forbid them in JSON-LD. Implementers please send
- reports of whether you are able to implement handling for lists-of-lists or
- would instead request such structures be disallowed.</p>
+ <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="5" title="Converting list of lists to JSON-LD ">
+ <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
+ this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
+ <a href="mailto:public-rdf-comments@w3.org">public-rdf-comments@w3.org</a>.
+ For the current status see
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
+ <p>In the interest of space and
+ simplicity, the steps necessary for handling lists of lists have been omitted.
+ Such lists and their elements must, recursively, be handled like other lists.
+ Lists of lists can, however, not be represented in JSON-LD using <code>@list</code>;
+ they have to be represented as a set of interlinked node objects using RDF's
+ <code>rdf:first</code> and <code>rdf:rest</code> properties.
+ <em>NOTE:</em> this is an at-risk feature. The Working Group might either require
+ handling of lists-of-lists or forbid them in JSON-LD. Implementers please send
+ reports of whether you are able to implement handling for lists-of-lists or
+ would instead request such structures be disallowed.</p>
+ </div>
<section class="informative">
<h3>Overview</h3>
@@ -3852,13 +3863,19 @@
<em>input</em> if it is an IRI. If not specified and <em>input</em> is not
an IRI, the base IRI defaults to the current document IRI if in a browser context,
or the empty string if there is no document context.
- <p class="issue atrisk" title="Feature at risk" data-number="223">The default value of this option
- implies that all IRIs that cannot be compacted otherwise are transformed to relative IRIs
- during compaction. To avoid that data is being lost, developers thus have to store the
- base IRI along with the compacted document. This might be problematic in practice and
- thus the default behavior might be changed in future. Furthermore, the relationship
- of this option to the <code>@base</code> keyword (which is at risk) should be further
- investigated.</p>
+ <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="4" title="Default value of base member in JsonLdOptions">
+ <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
+ this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
+ <a href="mailto:public-rdf-comments@w3.org">public-rdf-comments@w3.org</a>.
+ For the current status see
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
+ <p>The default value of this option implies that all IRIs that cannot be compacted otherwise
+ are transformed to relative IRIs during compaction. To avoid that data is being lost,
+ developers thus have to store the base IRI along with the compacted document. This might
+ be problematic in practice and thus the default behavior might be changed in future.
+ Furthermore, the relationship of this option to the <code>@base</code> keyword
+ (which is at risk) should be further investigated.</p>
+ </div>
</dd>
<dt>boolean compactArrays = true</dt>
<dd>If set to <code>true</code>, the JSON-LD processor replaces arrays with just
--- a/spec/latest/json-ld/index.html Tue Apr 02 14:40:14 2013 +0200
+++ b/spec/latest/json-ld/index.html Tue Apr 02 14:56:54 2013 +0200
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
// lcEnd: "2009-08-05",
issueBase: "https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/",
+ // atRiskBase: "https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/",
// if you want to have extra CSS, append them to this list
// it is recommended that the respec.css stylesheet be kept
@@ -89,7 +90,8 @@
</script>
<style type="text/css">
.diff { font-weight:bold; color:#0a3; }
- table, thead, tr, td { padding: 5px; border-width: 1px; border-spacing: 0px; border-style: solid; border-collapse: collapse;}
+ table, thead, tr, td { padding: 5px; border-width: 1px; border-spacing: 0px; border-style: solid; border-collapse: collapse; }
+ .atrisk-head { font-style: italic; }
</style>
</head>
@@ -788,12 +790,18 @@
<section class="informative">
<h2>Base IRI</h2>
- <p class="issue atrisk" data-number="223" title="Feature at risk">This feature is
- at risk as the fact that a document may have multiple base IRIs is potentially
- confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether relative IRIs
- are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether the empty string
- should be used to explicitly specify that there isn't a base IRI, which
- could be used to ensure that relative IRIs remain relative when expanding.</p>
+ <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="1" title="@base keyword">
+ <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
+ this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
+ <a href="mailto:public-rdf-comments@w3.org">public-rdf-comments@w3.org</a>.
+ For the current status see
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
+ <p>This feature is at risk as the fact that a document may have multiple base
+ IRIs is potentially confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether
+ relative IRIs are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether the
+ empty string should be used to explicitly specify that there isn't a base IRI,
+ which could be used to ensure that relative IRIs remain relative when expanding.</p>
+ </div>
<p>JSON-LD allows <tref>IRI</tref>s to be specified in a relative form which is
resolved against the document base according
@@ -1967,7 +1975,14 @@
<section class="informative">
<h2>Reverse Properties</h2>
- <p class="issue atrisk">This feature is at risk.</p>
+ <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="2" title="Reverse properties">
+ <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
+ this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
+ <a href="mailto:public-rdf-comments@w3.org">public-rdf-comments@w3.org</a>.
+ For the current status see
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
+ <p>This feature is at risk.</p>
+ </div>
<p>JSON-LD serializes directed <tref title="JSON-LD graph">graphs</tref>. That means that
every <tref>property</tref> points from a <tref>node</tref> to another <tref>node</tref>
@@ -2712,13 +2727,19 @@
<tref title="JSON-LD value">JSON-LD values</tref>.</li>
</ul>
- <p class="issue atrisk" data-number="217">RDF does not currently allow a
- <tref>blank node identifier</tref> to be used as <tref>graph name</tref> or
- <tref>property</tref>. Implementations might convert such
- <tref title="blank node identifier">blank node identifiers</tref>
- to <tref title="IRI">IRIs</tref> by minting new "Skolem IRIs" as per
- <cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization">Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs</a></cite>
- of [[RDF11-CONCEPTS]].</p>
+ <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="3" title="Allow blank nodes to be used as graph name or property">
+ <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
+ this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
+ <a href="mailto:public-rdf-comments@w3.org">public-rdf-comments@w3.org</a>.
+ For the current status see
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
+ <p>RDF does not currently allow a <tref>blank node identifier</tref> to be
+ used as <tref>graph name</tref> or <tref>property</tref>. Implementations
+ might convert such <tref title="blank node identifier">blank node identifiers</tref>
+ to <tref title="IRI">IRIs</tref> by minting new "Skolem IRIs" as per
+ <cite><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-skolemization">Replacing Blank Nodes with IRIs</a></cite>
+ of [[RDF11-CONCEPTS]].</p>
+ </div>
<p><tref title="JSON-LD document">JSON-LD documents</tref> MAY contain data that cannot be
represented by the <tref title="JSON-LD data model">data model</tref> defined above.
@@ -3024,12 +3045,18 @@
<p>If the <tref>context definition</tref> has a <code>@base</code> key,
its value MUST be an <tref>absolute IRI</tref> or <tref>null</tref>.</p>
- <p class="issue atrisk" data-number="223" title="Feature at risk">This feature is
- at risk as the fact that a document may have multiple base IRIs is potentially
- confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether relative IRIs
- are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether the empty string
- should be used to explicitly specify that there isn't a base IRI, which
- could be used to ensure that relative IRIs remain relative when expanding.</p>
+ <div class="issue atrisk" data-number="1" title="@base keyword">
+ <p class="atrisk-head">Note: This feature is "at risk" and may be removed from
+ this specification based on feedback. Please send feedback to
+ <a href="mailto:public-rdf-comments@w3.org">public-rdf-comments@w3.org</a>.
+ For the current status see
+ <a href="http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/JSON-LD_Features_at_Risk">features "at risk" in JSON-LD 1.0</a></p>
+ <p>This feature is at risk as the fact that a document may have multiple base
+ IRIs is potentially confusing for developers. It is also being discussed whether
+ relative IRIs are allowed as values of <code>@base</code> or whether the
+ empty string should be used to explicitly specify that there isn't a base IRI,
+ which could be used to ensure that relative IRIs remain relative when expanding.</p>
+ </div>
<p>If the <tref>context definition</tref> has a <code>@vocab</code> key,
its value MUST be a <tref>absolute IRI</tref>, a <tref>compact IRI</tref>,