- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:23:26 +0100
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: "'Robert Sanderson'" <azaroth42@gmail.com>, <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Markus, http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/rdfa11 http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/rdfa11.jsonld are both alive, return the same content, with application/ld+json as media type. I was wondering whether we should not have a http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/rdfa11.json as well, used if, through conneg, somebody asks for application/json. You guys tell me. Ivan On Feb 28, 2013, at 12:36 , Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: > 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 > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 12:23:54 UTC