Re: Forms and principles of the JSOD-LD context

On Oct 30, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Niklas Lindström wrote:

> Hi all!
> In the last telecon we discussed changing @coerce to use the terms as
> keys. AFAIK this is now agreed upon. This brought on a short
> discussion about the current form of contexts.

I actually added an example based on the telecom discussion in an issue [1]

    "rdf": "",
    "xsd": "",
    "name": "",
    "age":  {"@iri": "", "@coerce": "xsd:integer"},
    "homepage": {"@iri": "", "@coerce": "@iri"},
    "currentProject": {"@iri": "", "@coerce": ["@iri", "@list"]},

> As Manu explained, originally the current form was made for brevity,
> but we now believe that contexts can turn out to be fairly large
> anyway and will commonly be linked to as external documents. Thus, the
> case for brevity is lessened.
> I then went on to explore some options we may consider regarding how
> contexts work right now. I promised to do some tests and raise this on
> the mailing list. My delay in sending this has been since I've wavered
> a lot in evaluating the results. It's a bit tricky to pick principles
> against which to evaluate the role and form of the context definition.
> This is thus not so much a suggestion for a change as an attempt at
> discussing what we want the context to be. I believe that the strife
> to make things dead simple and as flat as possible are very important
> design goals. I also think that the current form of JSON-LD contexts
> adhere to these quite well. But I'd like to illuminate what the
> options are, and articulate the reasons for (and possibilities of)
> various forms.
> We may express some statements about the role and scope of contexts:
> * It's more important to easily read contexts than to write them.


> * A context has the following roles:
>  - It maps terms to IRIs (including terms used as prefixes)
>  - It can map terms to special processing keys (@iri, @type etc.)
>  - It can define a default term base using @vocab
>  - It can map a term to a coercion rule (defining how to interpret a value)
>  - It can define a default language (requiring plain string values to
> be explicitly coerced)

It can also define the document base with @base.

> So lets look at an alternative to the current context. It is about
> combining the declaration of the IRI for a term and an optional
> coercion. Consider this example in the current form of a context
> (using the new @coerce form mentioned above):
>    "@context": {
>        "@vocab": "",
>        "label": "",
>        "Document": "",
>        "primaryTopic": "",
>        "@coerce":  {
>            "created": "dateTime",
>            "creator": "@iri",
>            "identifier": "string"
>            "issued": "date",
>            "updated": "dateTime",
>            "primaryTopic": "@iri"
>        }
>    }
> We could instead use a form where values can either be the IRI string
> for the term, or an object defining both the @iri (or none to resolve
> it to @vocab) and a @coerce rule. Like:
>    "@context": {
>        "@vocab": "",
>        "created": {
>            "@coerce": "dateTime"
>        },
>        "creator": {
>            "@coerce": "@iri"
>        },
>        "identifier": {
>            "@coerce": "string"
>        },
>        "issued": {
>            "@coerce": "date"
>        },
>        "updated": {
>            "@coerce": "dateTime"
>        },
>        "label": "",
>        "Document": "",
>        "primaryTopic": {
>            "@iri": "",
>            "@coerce": "@iri"
>        }
>    }

Other than the fact that "dateTime", "string", and "date" have no defined meanings, I see value in this. It can be inferred the if there's an @vocab, then prefixes without a defined IRI are considered to be within that vocabulary and IRI expansion takes place.

> Now, I see that this is contentious. While it does make it immediate
> for a reader what both the IRI of and coercion for a term is, it isn't
> a given that those questions have to be answered at once. The current
> form (terms used as keys in "@coerce") is possibly superior for a
> reader only looking for what datatype is used for a term.
> For the (current) first form above to be better, this can be the principle:
> * When interpreting a context, users are expected to only look at one
> aspect at a time.
> A counter-principle could be:
> * When reading a context, everything applicable to the term should be
> immediate at once.
> Considering that a context defines a term by mapping it to an IRI and
> potentially a coercion rule, it might be more cohesive to merge the
> declarations. (Consider also e.g. the case where you want to define
> two terms with the same IRI but different coercion, such as
> creatorName for dc:creator as string and creator for dc:creator as
> @iri.)
> However, if contexts were to use this richer term definition object,
> are we on a path to defining a schema language? Are we opening the
> door for more complexities?

I think the expression is consistent with the rest of JSON-LD; we are adding more layer to this, but in the same character that JSON Objects are used with keywords to augment literals or lists.

> In support of the change, while not yet
> addressed, there are also one or two things asked for which do not fit
> squarely into coerce; like support for inverse terms and declaring if
> there will be a single value or a set (as a JSON list). For those
> features, this syntax may be more convenient (albeit not a necessity).

My example (above) accomplishes this by using an array of values after @coerce. I'm not a big fan of inverse terms, but if we were to do this, it could be accomplished in much the same way.

> In any case I still believe that the extent to which contexts resemble
> schemas must be limited to the minimum needed to map JSON syntax to
> RDF abstract syntax. From there on RDFS and OWL can give thorough
> descriptions of properties and classes. (That means JSON-LD contexts
> should reasonably not support e.g. the cardinality and syntactic
> constraints of JSON-schema, nor any of the advanced concepts of
> schemas, like the logical descriptive features of OWL.)
> (To get a feel for these forms, I've put a gist with variations of the
> context for the project I work with at:
> <>. (The most glaring thing to me there
> is the repetition of vocabulary bases (in both forms). But that's
> another issue (possibly solved using CURIEs).))

Also note problems in both these examples: for one, "dateTime" is not defined. Within the JSON-LD spec, it is defined as "".
> Thoughts?


Thanks for your thoughts. I can see some real advantages in consolidating this information, and it seems to follow given that we're already inclined to reverse the sense of @coerce relations.


> Best regards,
> Niklas

Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 00:35:09 UTC