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

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

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:57:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUF-=HNPVXPoDKLcLvEiho2PkMezcByyFmev1zdUwimYhA@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:39 GMT