Re: Agenda: Web Annotation Teleconference 9 Sept 2015

> On 04 Sep 2015, at 18:19 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com <mailto:w3c@fjhirsch.com>> wrote:
> 3 Cross-Context JSON-LD Integration, @id and @type
> 
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0061.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0061.html> (Rob)
> see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0074.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0074.html> (Gregg)
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0062.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0062.html> (James) among others
> 
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> ##  Compartmentalized Contexts
> 
>  * Have a base context that defines the JSON-LD keys the WG would like everyone to use for *our* predicates/classes
>  * Have an additional context for non OA predicates and classes that we recommend

I am not in favour or separating these two, I do not see the reason for it. The more @context-s the user has to add to his/her JSON file the worse is imho. Actually, I am not even sure where this proposal comes from, did we discuss this? B.t.w., we are not defining or, in your term, taking authority for any of those terms; essentially, give an easy access to vocabularies like skos or iana, or terms like foaf:Person.

Ie: -1 for that from my point of view.

>  * Revert the @id and @type change, or at most have it in a third, optional context

I am not sure there is, indeed, a problem, see my separate mail on the subject:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0082.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0082.html>

at this moment, unless there really *is* a major problem, I do not see any new issue/evidence that would warrant us to revert the decision. I certainly do not want to make this decision without further discussions.

So -1 again (at least for now)

Ivan

> 
> In this way we can be the authority for our definitions, and we let others be the authority for theirs.  However the second context would let developers who don't care about the bigger picture to focus on just a pure JSON serialization with known keys for everything.
> 
> 
> 4 Data Model issues
> Issue review and plans for publication
> 
> I started writing out the 3.1 with the choice between Compact and Consistent, and passed it over to Tim.  If it's ready, it would be good to review on the call.
> 
> 
> Thanks Frederick, all.
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704