W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Some minor changes on the RDFa context document

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:28:14 +0100
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, W3C RDFa Community <public-rdfa@w3.org>
Message-Id: <14694FFB-4684-4068-820C-BF9E7E105081@w3.org>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>


---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



> On 7 Jan 2017, at 08:07, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>> My apologies, you are right. I mixed up with the csvw context.
>> 
>> That being said, I wonder whether it would be a good idea to provide a general json-ld context with those prefixes, to be kept on /ns. We may want to see that with the JSON-LD community; it is not a big deal to have it and it may come handy.
> 
> Prefix.cc maintains a JSON-LD context with a number of prefixes [1]. W3C could certainly host another, which would just be a subset of the CSVW context.
> 
> I suspect we could automatically create such a context from the namespaces in www.w3.org/ns.
> 

Yes, but I wouldn't do that; being in ns doesn't mean it is stable. What I would propose to do is to have a strict copy of the rdfa default context entries in json ld (which is indeed a subset of tge one in csvw).

Can a context file refer to another one? Because then we could exchange the list of prefixes from the csvw context in favour of the separate one.

Ivan


>> Ivan
> 
> [1] https://prefix.cc/about/json-ld
> 
>>>> On 7 Jan 2017, at 00:46, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 5, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Two entries have been added to the list of "reserved" prefixes, ie, those that may be included into the official vocabulary prefixes. These are odrl and as.
>>>> 
>>>> While these have no effect on current implementations and usage of RDFa and JSON-LD, be advised that, in the coming 1-2 months, three new prefixes may be added to the list:
>>> 
>>> Note that JSON-LD does not use pre-defined prefixes, so there’s no change necessary here. However, recall that CSVW does use the same prefixes as RDFa, so we’ll want to update the CSVW context accordingly.
>>> 
>>> Gregg
>>> 
>>>> oa: Web Annotation vocabulary 
>>>> as: Activity (Streams) vocabulary
>>>> dqv: Data Quality Vocabulary
>>>> 
>>>> The first two are part of planned Recommendations; the third one is defined through an (already published) W3C Note. These changes may require a minor update on existing RDFa implementations.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> 
>>>> Ivan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C 
>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C 
>> Digital Publishing Technical Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
Received on Saturday, 7 January 2017 16:28:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 7 January 2017 16:28:36 UTC