- From: Thomas Bandholtz <thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:05:46 +0100
- To: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Am 07.01.2017 um 23:22 schrieb Ivan Herman: > I am getting too old... > > :-) > > ivan so am I. What the hell are they looking for? Have fun! Thomas > > --- > Ivan Herman > Tel:+31 641044153 > http://www.ivan-herman.net > > (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) > > > > On 7 Jan 2017, at 20:39, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: > >>> On 7 Jan 2017, at 08:07, Gregg Kellogg <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.com> wrote: >>> On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Ivan Herman <mailto: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. >>> >>> http://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 >>> http://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). >> >> I already created such a context quite a while ago. It's available at http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/rdfa11... as described on http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 :-) >> >> >> Cheers, >> Markus >> >> >> -- >> Markus Lanthaler >> @markuslanthaler >> >> >> > -- Thomas Bandholtz Principal Consultant (retired) innoQ Deutschland GmbH Krischerstr. 100, D-40789 Monheim am Rhein, Germany http://www.innoq.com thomas.bandholtz@innoq.com +49 178 4049387
Received on Monday, 9 January 2017 13:06:33 UTC