- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:14:07 +0200
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: <public-linked-json@w3.org>, "'Thomas Steiner'" <tomac@google.com>
On Sep 1, 2011, at 16:30 , Markus Lanthaler wrote: >> +1, but I would also consider the extra expansion feature defined in >> RDFa for @vocab... > > Ivan, could you please explain how you would see this work? I think that > introduces quite some complexity without any real advantage IMHO. > Complex... a little bit. But it certainly should be an optional feature, just like it is in RDFa[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#vocabulary-expansion the use case is similar to RDFa. If I have @vocab, and @vocab only (ie, I would not use @context), I would end up, in the generated RDF, with a set of URI-s that are not necessarily related to other vocabularies. FOr many applications that is fine and they do not really care. By having the @vocab, applications that really want to the RDF to bind to other vocabularies can get it via that vocabulary expansion. Yes, this is a typical RDF-based application, and not a traditional JSON application. Hence being optional. But just like in RDFa, I think it would be very useful. Ivan > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2011 15:14:22 UTC