- From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:20:14 +0200
- To: Dietrich Schulten <ds@escalon.de>
- Cc: Hydra <public-hydra@w3.org>, Karol Szczepański <karol.szczepanski@gmail.com>, John Walker <john.walker@semaku.com>
- Message-ID: <CAEdRHi6=Ofqeb4FnzjJknH_H=BbjVKj8fncfUDUpU5x-BNzhgA@mail.gmail.com>
2015-09-28 19:30 GMT+02:00 Dietrich Schulten <ds@escalon.de>: > A json-ld file is json with a linked-data context. Without a context, the > problem+json attributes are invisible to a json-ld processor. That is by > specification, "JSON keys that do not expand to an IRI > <http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#dfn-iri>, (...) are not Linked Data and > thus ignored when processed." > Yep. > The context can be linked in via a Link header or it can be embedded with > @context, in which case the media type *must* be application/ld+json, > otherwise the semantics of @context is undefined. In problem+json there is > no @context attribute, and there is no RDF vocab yet which defines its > attributes. > Aha. The fact that adhering to JSON-LD syntax without using application/ld+json (or the mentioned Link header) is useless was unknown to me until now. > What do you have in mind when you say "rewrite so it is compatible"? > Rewrite the JSON in the specification so it's JSON-LD compatible. With @context and everything. > Trouble is that the problem+json attribute semantics has not yet been > published in a way that can be mapped to RDF by a machine. There is a > relax-ng schema, but unlike xml schema with id attributes, relax-ng cannot > be re-used for RDF (afaik). Just stating that the rfc is also an RDF > vocabulary is not sufficient, it must be published and the json-ld response > must point to it somehow. > My thought was that is should be possible to embed this semantic in the specification, by rewriting it so it also defined an RDF vocabulary and so the JSON was JSON-LD compatible. > The media types ld+json and problem+json are mutually exclusive, I am > afraid there is no third way. > That's very sad, since using a more specific MIME type (as long as it's standardized and widely adopted; which I espect problem+json to be) is highly desirable. I thought having `@context` was enough. The best compromise would be a Link header then, I guess? -- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- asbjorn@ulsberg.no «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Monday, 28 September 2015 22:20:42 UTC