Skip to content
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

Weird wording in spec of Iri Compaction #75

Closed
pietervdvn opened this issue Oct 4, 2018 · 6 comments
Closed

Weird wording in spec of Iri Compaction #75

pietervdvn opened this issue Oct 4, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

@pietervdvn
Copy link

pietervdvn commented Oct 4, 2018

The spec of iri compaction states in 2.8

2.8.1: If value contains an @index member, append the values @graph@index and @graph@index@set to containers.

2.8.4 If value does not contain the key @index, append the values @graph@index and @graph@index@set to containers.

In other words, this boils down to always adding @graph@index and @graph@index@set to the containers array.

So either the spec can be simplified or some copy-paste error occurred. Could you please clarify?

@pietervdvn
Copy link
Author

The same also applies for 2.8.2 and 2.8.5

@gkellogg
Copy link
Member

gkellogg commented Oct 4, 2018

Order matters, after running through the steps, @graph@index and @graph@index@set will be in a different sequence in containers. If value contains @index we prefer that, otherwise, it’s an acceptable term, but at a lower priority.

@azaroth42
Copy link
Contributor

Agree with @gkellogg. Propose close, not an issue :)

@azaroth42
Copy link
Contributor

From WG call: @gkellogg to consider whether additional text could be valuable to explain how to read the algorithm steps.

@gkellogg
Copy link
Member

Consider informative notification for how the container matching works.

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Oct 13, 2018

This issue was discussed in a meeting.

  • RESOLVED: Mark #75 as editorial, for Gregg to consider whether additional text is needed to explain how to read the algorithm steps
View the transcript Rob Sanderson: link: #75
Rob Sanderson: first one seems like a misunderstanding about the algorithm. Greg clarified in the issue. no issue and we can close
Gregg Kellogg: maybe more descriptive overview could be helpful
Ivan Herman: the comment came in 8 days ago and the response came in 8 days ago as well. We should probably wait 1 week when we have issue from external members.
Rob Sanderson: close or make note about editorial changes?
Adam Soroka: +1 to editorial.
Gregg Kellogg: make it editorial and look to make sure the description is more robust
Ivan Herman: marked as editorial and will add reference to the notes
Rob Sanderson: we can close without further discussion
Proposed resolution: Mark #75 as editorial, for Gregg to consider whether additional text is needed to explain how to read the algorithm steps (Rob Sanderson)
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Rob Sanderson: +1
Jeff Mixter: +1
Ivan Herman: +1
Adam Soroka: +1
Benjamin Young: +1
Tim Cole: +1
Resolution #2: Mark #75 as editorial, for Gregg to consider whether additional text is needed to explain how to read the algorithm steps

gkellogg added a commit to w3c/json-ld-api that referenced this issue Dec 6, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants