- 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