RE: Merging @base and @vocab and change their behavior

I've reopened ISSUE-26 (https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/26). I
think this needs further discussion.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-linked-json-request@w3.org [mailto:public-linked-json-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 10:10 AM
> To: Markus Lanthaler
> Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Merging @base and @vocab and change their behavior
> 
> 
> On Sep 11, 2011, at 23:49 , Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> 
> > I understand how they are used and what the differences are. But I
> still
> > think they add unnecessary complexity without any clear advantages.
> Do we
> > really expect that in most of the use cases just one vocabulary is
> used?
> >
> > Having @base and @vocab makes it very difficult to read a JSON-LD
> document
> > since one have to keep in mind two (three?) base IRIs. Is this really
> > necessary? I wouldn't even be opposed to drop both, @base and @vocab.
> >
> >
> 
> +1 and, actually, I would not be opposed to drop it either...
> 
> Ivan
> 
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-linked-json-request@w3.org [mailto:public-linked-json-
> >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Niklas Lindström
> >> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 11:01 PM
> >> To: Markus Lanthaler
> >> Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: Merging @base and @vocab and change their behavior
> >>
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> I have to go with -1 on this. It would mean dropping the ability to
> >> use them for the separate concerns of resolving resources and their
> >> properties/classes.
> >>
> >> I don't think it is the common case that subjects and objects share
> >> the same base as the used vocabulary/vocabularies. Think for
> instance
> >> of foaf profiles, bibo records and goodrelations items. It is very
> >> beneficial to use @vocab to set the prefix IRIs of either foaf, bibo
> >> or gr, hence enabling the use of simple term tokens. But that would
> >> not be the useful to resolve subjects and objects against, which
> will
> >> likely reside on one or many domains separate from that of these
> >> vocabularies. (And even more so with data described using the
> >> schema.org vocabulary!)
> >>
> >> And note that @vocab doesn't (at least it shouldn't!) resolve
> relative
> >> IRIs – it is prepended to "opaque" terms the result of which is
> >> interpreted as an IRI. Quite different from the base URI mechanism
> (of
> >> at least HTML, XML and Turtle).
> >>
> >> In my current work, I use the canonical IRI of the current subject
> as
> >> @base, enabling me to use absolute IRIs (starting with "/") to link
> to
> >> other resources within the same domain (data space) *and* to use
> >> fragment IRIs to link to parts of the same resource (e.g. "#p_1" for
> a
> >> paragraph). And I also use @vocab for the main vocabulary (which is
> >> quite separate from the current resource).
> >>
> >> The analogy of @vocab and @base in JSON-LD to their equivalents in
> >> Turtle would in my view be:
> >>
> >>  @prefix : <http://example.org/def/stuff#> . # like @vocab in JSON-
> LD
> >>  @base <http://example.com/document/one> . # like @base in JSON-LD
> >>
> >>  <> a :Document;
> >>    :hasVersion </document/two> .
> >>
> >> Which is equivalent to:
> >>
> >>  @prefix : <http://example.org/def/stuff#> .
> >>
> >>  <http://example.com/document/one> a :Document;
> >>    :hasVersion <http://example.com/document/two> .
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, JSON-LD could use @base to resolve non-CURIEs if there is
> >> no defined @vocab. But that might be quite complex if resolving
> >> against them works differently (IRI resolution vs. plain
> >> concatenation). In fact, if you're looking to simplify things, I'd
> >> suggest dropping @base (thus requiring the use of full IRIs in
> >> subjects and objects) and leaving @vocab as it works now. Personally
> >> though (as evident from my mentioned work) I find @base useful.
> >>
> >> And note that I definitely think that @base should work for both
> >> subjects and objects. (If it doesn't that sounds like a spec bug.)
> >>
> >> (On a side note, it may be worth noting that it's easier to pattern
> >> match on full IRIs (i.e. not use @base), in case you're interested
> in
> >> an (optional) auto-coercion mechanism for such things. But I
> digress.)
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Niklas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Markus Lanthaler
> >> <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
> >>> In the current spec we have @base and @vocab to change the base IRI
> >> for
> >>> objects and properties (but nothing for subjects). I think that's
> >>> unnecessarily complicated and inconsistent.
> >>>
> >>> I would thus propose to merge @base and @vocab to @base and make it
> >> work as
> >>> it currently does in HTML and Turtle, i.e., @base would overwrite
> the
> >> base
> >>> IRI for *all* relative IRIs in the document.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Markus Lanthaler
> >>> @markuslanthaler
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Markus Lanthaler
> > @markuslanthaler
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 12 September 2011 10:19:55 UTC