- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 12:36:26 +0100
- To: "'Robert Sanderson'" <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Cc: <public-linked-json@w3.org>, "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:54 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > This is a great idea, which we're implementing at least until there's > a better solution. > > The remaining question is whether it should be the recommended best > practice? I think it should. > Ivan Herman said (quoted with permission), with regards to having > somewhere on the W3C site to collect context documents from different > ontologies: > > ---- > RDFa has the notion of initial contexts. They are much simpler and > less powerful than @context, and they are essentially static files > assigned to RDFa host languages, but they are more similar to @context > files than vocabularies are. Those files are stored in > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/ > > Taking that example, we can set up, say, > http://www.w3.org/2013/json-context/ > or > http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/ Definitely prefer the second IRI for consistency reasons. > as a more general resource where such files can be stored. > ---- > > This would fit more neatly with how we were expecting things to work, > but certainly is not in the Open Annotation CGs remit to request :) > Either this CG or the RDF WG would seem appropriate, if it's deemed to > be the correct way forwards. The situation is slightly different for RDFa because they mostly just contain prefixes. I think what most users of JSON-LD want are terms. As long as you use a single vocabulary that's no problem but as soon as you start mixing them you will end up having collisions. Thus, instead of creating profiles per vocabulary, I would expect that it's more useful to create shared contexts for application domains. A JSON-LD document could them signal compliancy to the conventions used for that domain by including a specific IRI in the profile parameter. That's exactly what it's for. Actually, it would make sense to define a JSON-LD context containing the same IRI mappings as RDFa's initial context. This would allow you to easily transform data from RDFa to JSON-LD and vice-versa. Ivan, if you want to get this started, here's the RDFa JSON-LD context: https://gist.github.com/lanthaler/5056140 > Many thanks for your engagement with the issue, and the merged > ontology/context suggestion :) I'm glad I could help. In return, you could help by sharing our logo contest :-P http://json-ld.org/logo-contest.html Cheers, Markus -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 11:37:00 UTC