- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 17:13:50 -0800
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-hydra@w3.org
> On Dec 14, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: > > On 13 Dez 2014 at 14:08, Dietrich Schulten wrote: >> Am 13.12.2014 13:38, schrieb Dietrich Schulten: >>> Hi, >>> >>> in schema.org it is quite common to have nested types. E.g. a >>> reviewRating in a Review is actually of type (range) Rating. In >>> json-ld (copied from http://schema.org/Review): >>> >> >> See also https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/26 and the >> proposal in https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/37. >> >> I ran into a known problem :) >> >> #37 envisions quite a change to hydra. Is there a recommendation how >> to handle this for now, based on the current spec? Or should I >> implement the proposal in #37 already? > > I don't really have an answer. I hope that the data shapes WG produces > something we can leverage instead of inventing our own thing but that might > take quite a while. It wouldn't harm if you could experiment with the > proposed designs. It would help us to make an informed decision later. We > can also report the insights you get from doing that back to the RDF Shapes > WG. Nesting is a markup concern, not a data-model. The data model Hydra works against is RDF. Nesting is a property of JSON-LD. Indeed the RDF Shapes WG is interested in how graphs look, but not specific serializations AFAIK. Perhaps a JSON Path expression on the resulting document would do this, or specifying a JSON-LD Frame to be used when serializing the document, or just re-serialize on the client using that frame. Gregg > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > > >
Received on Monday, 15 December 2014 01:14:19 UTC