- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:37:00 +0800
- To: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Hi Ivan
> although, actually, I have some plans to change the output to do
> something like that anyway, just for my understanding: do you mean to
> say that the approach I have below will become invalid? Ie, that
> putting a URI as a key will become invalid? Or that the alternative of
> using a CURIE become a possibility? I am still a bit messed up...
No, it would still be a completely valid document but the type coercion
wouldn't apply to those properties in the document as you use CURIEs there.
I think an example makes it easier to understand:
{
"@context": {
"foaf": "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/",
"http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox": {
"@type": "@id"
},
"foaf:homepage": {
"@type": "@id"
}
},
"http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox": "mailto:alice@example.com",
"foaf:homepage": "http://example.com/eve",
"foaf:mbox": "mailto:alice@example.com",
"http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage": "http://example.com/eve"
}
In this example the first two properties would be coerced to IRIs, the
latter two wouldn't. The reason is that a parser wouldn't find the type
coercion as the property keys in the document and in the context don't
match.
Hope this helps.
--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 12:37:34 UTC