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

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

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:47:12 +0100
To: "'Robert Sanderson'" <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <021601ce15db$a40a4280$ec1ec780$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
> That would apply to the Open Annotation situation as well.
> 
> Our context defines prefixes for skos, dc, dcterms, content in rdf,
> foaf and so on.
> It also defines names for the predicates used from those ontologies by
> typical uses of the data model.
> 
> eg, from
> http://openannotation.org/spec/core/publishing.html#Serialization:
> 
> {"@context" : {
>    "oa" :     "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#",
>    "cnt" :    "http://www.w3.org/2011/content#",
>    "dc" :     "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/",
>    "dcterms": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/",
>    "dctypes": "http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/",
> ...
>     "chars" :        "cnt:chars",
>     "bytes" :        "cnt:bytes",
>     "format" :       "dc:format",
> ...
>   }
> }
> 
> So we should ask for our own context document? Or define these in our
> ontology document?

It doesn't really matter.

The disadvantages of a separate document are:

  - an additional round-trip (assuming the vocab. is dereferenced
    for labels etc.)
  - another doc to update, and thus to keep in sync
  - another IRI to remember

The pros:

  - context would be smaller (doesn't matter is vocab. is deref. anyway)
  - it might look better (but in the end IRIs are opaque)

I personally would go for a single doc, but it's up to you.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 17:47:46 GMT

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