Re: [Serialization] Integration and @id/@type

100% agree with the approach of reaching out to these communities.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015, 12:34 Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> A concern I have with the current proposed change to the JSON-LD context
> is the mapping of @id and @type to id and type, respectively.
>
> Given just a single annotation, this poses no significant problem.  When
> compacting data according to the JSON-LD algorithm, it respects the id and
> type definitions as expected.
>
> However, when we come to integrate annotations within other JSON-LD
> systems, we run into potential issues.  Notably, if we want to reuse the
> Collections class [1] from ActivityStreams in the Social Web WG work, and
> both contexts are provided, it will generate unexpected results.  The same
> would apply to any other use of our context in systems that did not also
> make the mapping from @id to id.... or worse used id or type for something
> other than the URI of the resource.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#collections
>
> For example, we have a requirement for collections of Annotations.  In
> order to use AS Collections, we would add our context document along with
> theirs and expect to produce something like:
>
> {
>   "@context": ["http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", "
> http://www.w3.org/ns/oa.jsonld"],
>   "@id": "http://example.org/collection1",
>   "@type": "OrderedCollection",
>   "totalItems": 1000,
>   "orderedItems": [
>     {
>       "id": "http://example.org/anno1",
>       "type": "Annotation",
>       "body": "Some comment",
>       "target": "http://www.example.com/index.html"
>     }, ...
>   ]
> }
>
> But /actually/ our context would override the activitystreams context, and
> the serialization would use "id" and "type" at the top level as well, where
> JSON based AS consumers would not expect those keys.
>
> The context can be added at the Annotation level, however there is a known
> issue that when compacting / expanding, the context will disappear. See
> this thread:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2014Jul/0011.html
>
> My proposal is to discuss this issue with the Social Web WG and the Linked
> JSON Community Group, and see what the community at large thinks.  And that
> we should go with the broader consensus of what is best practice, rather
> than potentially making a cosmetic change that has the unintended side
> effect of limiting integration.
>
> I'm happy to start that conversation if you all think it would be valuable?
>
> Rob
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>