W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > January 2012

RE: Updated Editor's Draft of JSON-LD Syntax

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:14:46 +0800
To: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <02a001ccd9ea$22fad3e0$68f07ba0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
> > It is a separate issue.. and is not just about that. Consider the
> following
> > JSON-LD document:
> >
> > {
> >  "@context": {"homepage": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage"},
> >  "@id": "homepage#me",
> >  "homepage": {"@id": "homepage"}
> > }
> >
> I see where you are going but I think that
> <homepage#me> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage>
> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage> .
> is probably the right answer, though clearly not the intended one...

That would be the output according to the current spec.

> Ie, if starting to define a microsyntax to expand parts of a string
> (even if we know that the string is a URI) is feature creep for my
> taste.

I can't see any problem with requiring relative IRIs to start with an "/" or
".", that's as much a microsyntax as the use of a colon to separate prefixes
from suffixes:

  "@context": {"homepage": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage"},
  "@id": "homepage#me",
  "homepage": {"@id": "/homepage"}

I would even go a step further and say that this makes a JSON-LD document
much more readable and way easier to understand.

> However... what this seems to ask for is a @base. An earlier version of
> JSON-LS had this, afaik; maybe it is time to revisit this?

No, @base wouldn't solve the above issue per se. But you are right, you
could use an empty prefix for this (which basically emulates @base) as

  "@context": {
    "": "http://www.example.com/",
    "homepage": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage"
  "@id": "homepage#me",
  "homepage": {"@id": ":homepage"}

Markus Lanthaler

Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 16:15:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:53:19 UTC