change definition of rdf:JSON

[pchampin]

to try and solve #116

---

Preview | Diff

[pfps]

Better would be

finite unordered maps from <a>strings</a> to values in the <a href="#JSON-value-space">value space</a>

with a note just after saying,

The finite unordered maps can be implemented as <a data-cite="INFRA#ordered-map">maps</a>
    from <a>strings</a> to values in the <a href="#JSON-value-space">value space</a>
where the key-value pairs are ordered by key (using <a data-cite="I18N-GLOSSARY#dfn-code-point" class="lint-ignore">Unicode code points</a> order).

This makes the definition correct with respect to JSON objects while retaining the potential use of INFRA.

[TallTed]

@pfps — Can you make your comment(s) as a "suggested change" through the GitHub UI? It will be much easier to review the line(s) you're suggesting be added or changed, in the immediate context of the line(s) you're suggesting be changed or removed.

[pfps]

How can I make a suggested change to a place in the document that is not being changed?

[TallTed]

"View the document" and click on the line number you want to discuss. Then ctrl-click on it. You'll get a menu of options, at least one of which should be relevant. (Probably you don't want to create a new issue, but you can just copy the link to the line, so we know what your suggested "Better would be" change should be applied to ... which is unknowable as things stand. )

[gkellogg]

With the small grammar change I suggested. I think @pfps suggestion is also useful to not completely throw people off who believe JSON objects are unordered.

[hartig]

Suggested change

The constraint to order map entries in the value space is only meant to make the order of object-member the lexical space irrelevant. In other word, it ensures that both lexical values <code>{"a": "b", "c": "d"}</code> and <code>{"c": "d", "a": "b"}</code> are mapped to the same element of the value space. Implementations may omit to sort the entries, as long as they treat the maps in the value space as unordered.

The constraint to order map entries in the value space is only meant to make the order of map entries in the lexical space irrelevant. In other words, it ensures that both lexical values <code>{"a": "b", "c": "d"}</code> and <code>{"c": "d", "a": "b"}</code> are mapped to the same element of the value space. Implementations may omit to sort the entries, as long as they treat the maps in the value space as unordered.

[pchampin]

the lexical space is made of strings, not of maps... So technically, there are no map entries in the lexical space. "object member" refers to the terms in the JSON grammar, and therefore is more appropriate for talking about the lexical space.

[pchampin]

Apart from that, "object-member" should have been plural, and indeed "word" as well... This is fixed in 215a18e .