- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 20:29:07 +0200
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote: > { > "@context": { > "uri": "@subject", > "a": "@type" > }, > "uri": "http://subject/", > "a": "http://schema.org/Person" > } > > Basically, the @context processing would establish mappings for "uri" => > "@subject", and "a" => "@type", and in the processing loop, then the key > would be interpreted through this mapping and resolve to "@subject" and > "@type" respectively. Yes! That is very useful. This makes it possible to map many kinds of JSON to RDF, as long as they adhere to a compatible basic shape. Also, with coercing, type can be given as a term ({"a": "Person"}). (Note though that there are a bunch of details and edge cases to consider; as e.g. JSON "in the wild" quite often link to other *JSON* representations, distinct from the canonical URIs of the resources (see e.g. the LCSH data [1]).) This is just what I'm after in Gluon (which the early "Compact Gluon" [2] exihibits). One goal is to have the JSON look just like regular JSON. The only "special" key would be the one providing a profile (context) reference -- unless that is given out of band (e.g. in the content type or a http link header). I'd recommend to publish JSON with a context link inline, so one can discover it's detailed meaning when needed. I think it is possible to avoid the use of "@" entirely in such usage, since it would be predefined which keys are "special" and which are "triple terms". A related idea is if it'd be useful to (configurably) be able to give the subject @uri as the key of an object map (again, compact gluon use that notation). Like: { "htttp://example.org/doc/1": { "title": "document one" } } Here there's even a possibility of making JSON-LD a *superset* of RDF/JSON. (While I'm inclined to believe that that syntax and a compact "natural" JSON are *complementary*, it may be worth considering depending on use case). Best regards, Niklas [1]: http://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh95000541.json [2]: http://code.google.com/p/oort/wiki/Gluon#Overview
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 18:30:03 UTC