- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:57:02 -0700
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, public-linked-json@w3.org
Dear all, May I ask why it would be best practice for RDFa to have their own context separately, yet ontologies to have them merged? Surely it should be in http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa when content negotiated for JSON-LD? Thanks! Rob On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > Markus, > > http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/rdfa11 > http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/rdfa11.jsonld > > are both alive, return the same content, with application/ld+json as media type. > > I was wondering whether we should not have a > > http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/rdfa11.json > > as well, used if, through conneg, somebody asks for application/json. > > You guys tell me. > > Ivan > > > > > 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 15:57:34 UTC