Re: JSON-LD Context URI

That sounds like a good workaround! OWL ontologies in JSON-LD is a bit
unusual; but I guess it would work.

I'll have a look if we can do some kind of conversion (given an
OWL/RDFS context); then we can just semi-concatenate in the @context.
Maintaining the ontology in JSON-LD as the raw format might or might
not work well.

One issue is that JSON clients might not be good at content
negotiations; so the official @context should probably include the
.json extension (or equivalent) - I guess this is OK - just like we
have http://www.w3.org/ns/oa.ttl and http://www.w3.org/ns/oa.rdf
already.



On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> A slight hiccup... the location that we specified in the most recent
> version of the spec for the default JSON-LD context document isn't
> actually available to use.  The W3C uses the /ns/ directory
> exclusively for namespace documents, and the context document doesn't
> count.  W3C doesn't have a /contexts/ yet (and may never have one), we
> don't have a /TR/ space as a community group, so we'd be back to
> putting it in openannotation.org.  This is undesirable for when we
> move further into the standards process, of course.
>
> We could have a PURL redirect and swap it from one to the other, but
> then we would lose the versioning information and just adds an
> additional hop for processors to follow.
>
> We're discussing the issue on the JSON-LD list, please feel free to
> join in if it's of interest to you, but one interesting proposal is as
> below.
> The original thread is here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2013Feb/0152.html
>
> -----
>> As the W3C (thank you Ivan) lets us
>> publish our namespace documents, we figured that they'd also let us
>> publish the JSON-LD context file, but they don't have anything in
>> place for doing that yet.
>
> I didn't know that. If that's the case, why don't combine your namespace
> document with your external context? The external context would end up being
> slightly bigger, but that shouldn't really matter. That even has the
> advantage that your namespace document is available as JSON-LD and there
> won't be an additional round-trip to fetch its definitions.
>
> So, what I mean is this. You upload a JSON-LD document describing your
> vocabulary. In that document you also include an @context element at the
> top-level JSON object. You can even use that local context when describing
> your vocab.
>
> {
>   "@context": {
>     ...
>   },
>   ... your vocabulary ...
> }
>
> When retrieving an external context, a JSON-LD will ignore everything but
> the context. Et voila, everything works as expected. You have your context
> at a stable location and even reduced the number of necessary roundtrips if
> you need, e.g., the labels for some properties.
> -----
>
>
> This seems extremely attractive to me, at least.  We wouldn't have to
> maintain two separate files (ontology in JSON-LD and context would be
> the same document) and processors would still do the right thing.
>
> Rob
>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team
School of Computer Science
The University of Manchester

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 10:12:36 UTC