W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2013

rdfa11.jsonld (was Re: Open Annotation / Default Context Location?)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:23:26 +0100
Cc: "'Robert Sanderson'" <azaroth42@gmail.com>, <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-Id: <18AD5134-8775-460E-AD35-87E555F58A3F@w3.org>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>


are both alive, return the same content, with application/ld+json as media type.

I was wondering whether we should not have a 


as well, used if, through conneg, somebody asks for application/json.

You guys tell me.


On Feb 28, 2013, at 12:36 , Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:54 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>> This is a great idea, which we're implementing at least until there's
>> a better solution.
>> The remaining question is whether it should be the recommended best
>> practice?
> I think it should.
>> Ivan Herman said (quoted with permission), with regards to having
>> somewhere on the W3C site to collect context documents from different
>> ontologies:
>> ----
>> RDFa has the notion of initial contexts. They are much simpler and
>> less powerful than @context, and they are essentially static files
>> assigned to RDFa host languages, but they are more similar to @context
>> files than vocabularies are. Those files are stored in
>>    http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/
>> Taking that example, we can set up, say,
>>    http://www.w3.org/2013/json-context/
>> or
>>    http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/
> Definitely prefer the second IRI for consistency reasons.
>> as a more general resource where such files can be stored.
>> ----
>> This would fit more neatly with how we were expecting things to work,
>> but certainly is not in the Open Annotation CGs remit to request :)
>> Either this CG or the RDF WG would seem appropriate, if it's deemed to
>> be the correct way forwards.
> The situation is slightly different for RDFa because they mostly just
> contain prefixes. I think what most users of JSON-LD want are terms. As long
> as you use a single vocabulary that's no problem but as soon as you start
> mixing them you will end up having collisions. Thus, instead of creating
> profiles per vocabulary, I would expect that it's more useful to create
> shared contexts for application domains. A JSON-LD document could them
> signal compliancy to the conventions used for that domain by including a
> specific IRI in the profile parameter. That's exactly what it's for.
> Actually, it would make sense to define a JSON-LD context containing the
> same IRI mappings as RDFa's initial context. This would allow you to easily
> transform data from RDFa to JSON-LD and vice-versa.
> Ivan, if you want to get this started, here's the RDFa JSON-LD context:
>  https://gist.github.com/lanthaler/5056140
>> Many thanks for your engagement with the issue, and the merged
>> ontology/context suggestion :)
> I'm glad I could help. In return, you could help by sharing our logo contest
> :-P
>   http://json-ld.org/logo-contest.html
> Cheers,
> Markus
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 12:23:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:53:21 UTC