Re: license definition in schema.org context document

Raised an issue in Github to address this:
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1986

~Richard.

Richard Wallis
Founder, Data Liberate
http://dataliberate.com
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
Twitter: @rjw

On 30 June 2018 at 22:20, Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu> wrote:

> What is the intended meaning of the term "license" in the context of a
> schema.org description serialized as json-ld? The term is defined twice
> in https://schema.org/docs/jsonldcontext.json (also if you retrieve
> context document from http://schema.org or https://schema.org using
> content negotiation).
>
>
>
> Lines 22-25:
>
> ...
>
>         "ical": "http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/icaltzd#",
>
>         "license": "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#license",
>
>         "ma": "http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont#",
>
> ...
>
>
>
> Lines 1748-50
>
> ...
>
>         "letterer": { "@id": "schema:letterer"},
>
>         "license": { "@id": "schema:license", "@type": "@id"},
>
>         "line": { "@id": "schema:line"},
>
> ...
>
>
>
> Since the schema:license definition appears later in the context document,
> I assume it wins over the definition linking to the xhtml vocabulary, but
> perhaps it would be a good idea to clean this up in the schema.org
> context document? Unless this is unavoidable in how context document is
> being generated. So in my json-ld I would use the key "license" to refer to
> schema:license property and the key "xhv:license" to refer to license
> property as defined in xhtml vocabulary? (Semantic difference is minimal,
> so I'm probably being pedantic.)
>
>
>
> Note, there are a number of other duplicated keys in the schema.org
> context document besides license, but none of them are contradictory (and
> so less chance of misinterpretation). E.g., the definition of the prefix
> "org" (lines 27 & 28) and the definitions of many terms from the Health and
> Life Sciences Extension (health-lifesci) such as  Nursing (lines 684-85),
> SurgicalProcedure (lines 979-980), etc. Less of a concern, but would it be
> possible to clean these up since (if I'm remembering correctly) duplicated
> keys violate a SHOULD in the JSON standard and some parsers object to
> duplicated keys?
>
>
>
> Apologies if this issue has already been addressed in an earlier post to
> this list that I failed to find or is already dealt with in pending
> release.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Tim Cole
>
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
>
>