Re: @context file

I think there would be no problems serializing and reading the JSON-LD if
parties use the same context.

And expanded serializations would make all keys absolute, so that should
always work.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015, 22:28 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> > On 16 Aug 2015, at 24:18 , Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Ivan-
> >
> > As discussed the changes to @context mean that agents creating JSON-LD
> can use type instead of @type and id instead of @id -- which is good, but
> what about when annotations stored as RDF are to be disseminated in JSON-LD?
> >
> > I'm not clear from what I can discover from the JSON-LD Processing
> Algorithms and API document and from the test reports done for JSON-LD
> exactly how @context mappings are used when serializing RDF as JSON-LD (it
> does look that there is provision for applying @context, just not sure I
> understand all the rules, and when there is a choice -- as there would be
> for @type/type and @id/id, I would assume that the transforming agent has
> some discretion).
>
> I do not really know. I *think* that this is entirely the discretion of
> the conversion tool; I would expect good tools to be able to take a
> @context file and make a maximum use of it. But I would actually be
> surprised if this was standardized. Well, maybe the framing tool do that,
> but those are not standard.
>
> >
> > Is this another question for Greg, or do you or James know, or does
> someone else?
>
> Asking Gregg is definitely a good idea. He knows JSON-LD inside out,
> having also make a complete implementation around it (and having a great
> experience in RDF tools, too).
>
> >
> > Or maybe we have to provide libraries for this?
> >
>
> I do not think so.
>
> > Or maybe this is not an issue?
>
> Well… I do not think this is an active issue for us.
>
> @context is really there to simplify the JSON format of our data items.
> Where it *may* become an issue is if a fully RDF-based system has
> annotation data and wants to communicate/export the data with a pure JSON
> based annotations environment: they would have to export in the restricted
> JSON-LD format that we define. That may involve framing, etc, and that also
> means using @context. But that is mostly an implementation problem, not a
> specification one… (unless we want to define the details of framing in the
> standard, but I am not convinced we should do that). And I am not sure that
> scenario is a really realistic one, to be honest. Where I would expect LD
> to play a role is *consuming* existing annotation data into some LD
> environment (data integration with other types of data), where this problem
> does not occur, and not the other way round.
>
> My 2 cents…
>
> Cheers
>
> Ivan
>
> >
> > I ask not only as regards type and id, but because there is additional
> aliasing in @context we could consider to make the JSON-LD serialization
> seem more natural.
> >
> > By the way, I appreciate you fixing up the Wiki page examples. Thank you.
> >
> > -Tim Cole
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 11:17 AM
> > To: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
> > Subject: @context file
> >
> > I have made the changes we agreed upon on the @context file, both on the
> github repo and on /ns.
> >
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>