W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Google adds JSON-LD support to Gmail

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:18:59 -0400
Message-ID: <5194F8E3.3020404@w3.org>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
CC: 'Linked JSON' <public-linked-json@w3.org>, 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 05/16/2013 10:42 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:08 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
>> Google just added JSON-LD support to Gmail. It was announced at Google
>> I/O (thanks to Bob Du Charme for spotting it):
> Woohoo!

Pretty awesome!

>> They have decided to not use a URL in the '@context'. I'm currently
>> trying to find out why they did this. If they did this on purpose, we
>> may have to do another LC to accept 'keywords' in the @context field.
>> Ideally, we can just ask them to put 'http://' in front of the
>> parameter. It's the only place that they deviated from the spec (which
>> is actually pretty good).
> Just a quick idea because I'm in a hurry.. Perhaps we could also use
> WHATWG's URL parsing algorithm
> http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#parsing
> but that would probably mean that relative URLs are not supported anymore
> which would be very bad!
> Let's hope they add the http://

Another option -- a little bit odd -- would be to just add "//", so that 
it's relative to the URI scheme and can be handled as http or https as 
suits the situation.   That is: convince them to use "//schema.org" as 
the @context instead of just "schema.org".

This kind of touches on the blank-node-graph-names topic, in that it 
comes back to: *what is the base for a message?*  And who gets to say?   
In this case, Google seems to be saying that in email that goes to 
gmail.com, the base is "http://".   Do they have the right to say that, 
given current specs?    I have no idea.

(Does "http://schema.org" function as a proper json-ld @context IRI 
today?    If not, I imagine it could, easily enough.)

      -- Sandro

> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 15:19:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:37 UTC