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

Rob

Thanks for thinking about integration, agree useful to discuss this proposal with other groups.

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 3:33 PM, 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?

Definitely

> 
> Rob
> 
> -- 
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Co-Chair, W3C Web Annotation WG

www.fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch

Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2015 20:37:05 UTC