Hey Gregg,
On 05 Oct 2014, at 21:46 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Yes and yes. However, if we decide to use a different term name for something, then the core schema.org context may not work. Also, I do not know whether there is a context set up for DCMI terms... (Gregg may know). Bottom line is that we may have to provide our own context file.
>
> I'm not aware of any such context, but for the most part, the following would just work:
>
> {
> "@context": {
> "@vocab": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
> }
> }
I am afraid this would not work for our use case. This would turn *all* unqualified terms into DC terms, and this is not what we want (for example, with "@id" or "@type" in the current metadata spec).
>
> IMO, getting DCMI to publish and "official" context, with perhaps some datatyping information (although DC Terms is light on this anyway), would be a good idea.
>
>
Yes. And, if we go along the approach I proposed, we may have to do it ourselves for the few terms that we want to use for the 'core'.
Ivan
----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
GPG: 0x343F1A3D
WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
Received on Monday, 6 October 2014 05:04:10 UTC