Re: Agenda: Web Annotation Teleconference 9 Sept 2015

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
> 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> wrote:
>
>> 3 Cross-Context JSON-LD Integration, @id and @type
>>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0061.html
>> (Rob)
>> see
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0074.html
>> (Gregg)
>> 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.
>

I would prefer we publish as few JSON-LD context files as possible.

Since we're recommending a pretty clear JSON structure--extended (as it
were) with JSON-LD "meaning"--I'd think we'd want to keep these recommended
classes in place, so folks don't have to go figure those out to when they
want to give the person annotating a name, etc.

For folks wanting to override those, or use their own, I think the cost is
lower and the knowledge required to override it likely already exists in
those heads vs. the "just JSON" developer who "just wants to write an
annotation" and "needs to know where to put the authors name." :) Roughly.
;)



>
>  * 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
>
> 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)
>

I'm +1 to reverting this change, actually.

In the case of Hypothesis' JSON we (currently) use `id` to be the non-URL
`id` of within our system. Much of the rest of our JSON is already informed
by the spec and "magically" upgrades if I add the context to it.

See http://hypothes.is/api/search for a list of examples you can use in the
JSON-LD playground. :)

If I add the current context file that maps `id` to `@id`, then the `id`
field would throw an error as it's not a URL, but if it remained `@id` then
it's a "new thing" (to our system at least) and we'd populate it
accordingly--vs. having to change `id` and the code that currently depends
on it.

Likely other people are in the same boat, or they've used `id` and `type`
within their system in non-JSON-LD related ways (I certainly have a stack
of apps that use both of those in very idiosyncratic ways).

Maybe other devs out there have other examples? Would be nice to have some
scenarios to discuss.

Cheers!
Benjamin
--
Developer Advocate
http://hypothes.is/


>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>