W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > October 2011

Re: ISSUE-30 - JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2011-10-04

From: David I. Lehn <dil@lehn.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:09:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CADcbRRNp0YdQ+SSi8yYT+nPg2oUqpQy+Gw2ZgPa5ih5KL8GJ+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2011, at 8:14 AM, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Following up on ISSUE-30: Distinguishing @context documents.
>> ...
>> PROPOSAL:
>> Do not differentiate between JSON-LD Context documents and JSON-LD instance documents. If @context is specified in a JSON-LD document and a remote document is listed, the remote document's @context element is merged into the current active context. If there is no @context element in the remote document, the active context remains unchanged.
>
> +1, but we'll need to be more explicit in the processing steps. We also need to introduce the array notation to specify multiple contexts for a single key.
>

I'm guessing the processing algorithm will be to process array
@contexts in order and you merge each new context (local or remote) on
top of the current context state.  If so, that seems fine to me.

-dave
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 20:09:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:35 GMT