- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 10:10:15 -0700
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@okfn.org>, W3C CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
On Oct 5, 2014, at 10:03 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> Hey Gregg,
>
> On 05 Oct 2014, at 21:46 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes and yes. However, if we decide to use a different term name for something, then the core schema.org context may not work. Also, I do not know whether there is a context set up for DCMI terms... (Gregg may know). Bottom line is that we may have to provide our own context file.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any such context, but for the most part, the following would just work:
>>
>> {
>> "@context": {
>> "@vocab": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
>> }
>> }
>
> I am afraid this would not work for our use case. This would turn *all* unqualified terms into DC terms, and this is not what we want (for example, with "@id" or "@type" in the current metadata spec).
>
>>
>> IMO, getting DCMI to publish and "official" context, with perhaps some datatyping information (although DC Terms is light on this anyway), would be a good idea.
>>
>>
>
> Yes. And, if we go along the approach I proposed, we may have to do it ourselves for the few terms that we want to use for the 'core'.
I have a script which generates JSON-LD contexts from vocabulary definitions (script/gen_context in the json-ld gem). I ran it on DCT and came up with the following: https://gist.github.com/gkellogg/b01c0ac49896086772a1
Gregg
> Ivan
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 17:10:46 UTC