- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:35:50 -0700
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Tim Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABevsUH2jtoXj_L_V-sgmRk5raqiGSW0udU_0+5wD5RS=BQCVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sorry, catching up after a vacation weekend (5th wedding anniversary). After reading the docs and playing in the playground, I agree that @type:@id should be @type:@vocab. At some point in the past the playground must have been buggy and treated both as per @vocab, as now I need to go and fix a bunch of other contexts that were relying on @type:@id resolving a term to a URI :( Also agree we should not define a default @vocab. Other systems may rely on relative URIs or otherwise set one. The agreement previously was to remove namespaces, I believe wherever possible. E.g. as per: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/12 and discussed (IIRC) on one of the calls, if likely only briefly. I think we should be consistent ... either we require namespaces everywhere in values, or nowhere. I wouldn't want to do @type: "Annotation" and then motivation: "oa:bookmarking" or vice versa. My test case (similar to Tim's): { "@context": { "oa": "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#", "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#", "type": {"@id":"rdf:type", "@type":"@vocab"}, "Annotation": {"@type":"@id", "@id": "oa:Annotation"}, "motivation": {"@id": "oa:motivatedBy", "@type": "@vocab"}, "bookmarking": {"@type": "@id", "@id": "oa:bookmarking"} }, "type": "Annotation", "motivation": "bookmarking" } Rob On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > > On 10 Aug 2015, at 11:32 , Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > > > > >> > >> Actually… the idiom > >> > >> "url" : { "@type" : "@id", "@id" : "@id"} > >> > >> also seemed to work on playground. If I then use: > >> > >> { > >> "@context" : { > >> "type" : { "@type" : "@vocab", "@id":"rdf:type"}, > >> "url" : { "@type" : "@id", "@id" : "@id"} > >> }, > >> "type" : "http://this.type.example.org", > >> "url":"http://ww.example.org" > >> } > >> > >> Ie, if the @context is included by URI > >> > >> { > >> "@context" : "http://somewhere.org, > >> "type" : "http://this.type.example.org", > >> "url":"http://ww.example.org" > >> } > >> > >> I get > >> > >> <http://ww.example.org> <rdf:type> <http://this.type.example.org> . > >> > > > > I have asked a JSON-LD expert to see whether this is 'legal' JSON-LD > > Got the answer (from Gregg): yes, it is valid. > > Ivan > > > > > > Ivan > > > > ---- > > Ivan Herman, W3C > > Digital Publishing Activity Lead > > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > > mobile: +31-641044153 > > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > > -- Rob Sanderson Information Standards Advocate Digital Library Systems and Services Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Monday, 10 August 2015 16:36:19 UTC