- From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:33:33 -0700
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
That would apply to the Open Annotation situation as well.
Our context defines prefixes for skos, dc, dcterms, content in rdf,
foaf and so on.
It also defines names for the predicates used from those ontologies by
typical uses of the data model.
eg, from http://openannotation.org/spec/core/publishing.html#Serialization:
{"@context" : {
"oa" : "http://www.w3.org/ns/oa#",
"cnt" : "http://www.w3.org/2011/content#",
"dc" : "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/",
"dcterms": "http://purl.org/dc/terms/",
"dctypes": "http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/",
...
"chars" : "cnt:chars",
"bytes" : "cnt:bytes",
"format" : "dc:format",
...
}
}
So we should ask for our own context document? Or define these in our
ontology document?
Rob
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Markus Lanthaler
<markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:57 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
>
>> May I ask why it would be best practice for RDFa to have their own
>> context separately, yet ontologies to have them merged?
>>
>> Surely it should be in http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa when content
>> negotiated for JSON-LD?
>
> RDFa's namespace (vocabulary) != RDFa's initial context
>
> The RDFa initial context contains prefixes for multiple vocabularies plus a
> number of terms whereas RDF's vocabulary contains definitions like
> rdfa:PrefixOrTermMapping etc. These are two different things and should be
> kept separate as they will evolve separately. It would make no sense to
> define, e.g., skosxl or void prefixes in RDFa's namespace.
>
> Hope this clears things up
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 17:34:00 UTC