- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:47:12 +0100
- To: "'Robert Sanderson'" <azaroth42@gmail.com>
- 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? It doesn't really matter. The disadvantages of a separate document are: - an additional round-trip (assuming the vocab. is dereferenced for labels etc.) - another doc to update, and thus to keep in sync - another IRI to remember The pros: - context would be smaller (doesn't matter is vocab. is deref. anyway) - it might look better (but in the end IRIs are opaque) I personally would go for a single doc, but it's up to you. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 17:47:46 UTC