Re: Context processing of object without @context

On Aug 26, 2013, at 8:45 AM, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Monday, August 26, 2013 5:20 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 2013, at 7:56 AM, Dave Longley wrote:
>>> Hmm, this is problematic because there is different behavior
>> (sometimes, eg: @base?) for remote contexts vs. local ones. I don't
>> think that we're always supposed to treat the parameter given to the
>> API document as a remote context (if it is a URL, yes, but otherwise
>> no). So, we wouldn't have any way, other than inlining the contexts in
>> the manifests, to specify that a context is not remote.
>> 
>> I think that's what we'd need to do; moreover, to survive a
>> transformation to RDF, I think an inline context would need to be
>> encoded in a string. Taken as is, a test entry lists input, context,
>> and expect all as IRIs, which become fully expanded, so the context is
>> always specified given a URL. If we make it a value (perhaps with a
>> special datatype), we could then specify an immediate value to be used
>> for the context.
> 
> No, lets please not go down that route. If we really need this, I think we
> should add a flag, something like "passContextAsValue".

Such a flag wouldn't be needed if we just used an expanded value for this case.

> That being said, I
> think that's clearly an API test and not an algorithmic test. As such, I
> think it would be better to include it directly into idltest [1].

I think that's a great idea.

> We must not forget to add those tests to the implementation reports as
> well.

Yes, I sent out something a bit ago about getting a manifest created for the idl tests, and an implementation report, for which I presume the test subject is the spec itself. Is this something you could take care of?

Gregg

> [1] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/tree/master/test-suite/idltest
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
> 
>

Received on Monday, 26 August 2013 17:38:53 UTC