- From: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 06:53:42 +0100
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
Hello Markus,
thanks for your answer.
I didn't knew that it is possible to use @reverse like this in JSON-LD,
but good to know :)
However, I agree that this is an awkward solution.
Good hint to use entailment! This means that in RDF is is not mandatory
to define a node type, right?
I know that a "range'd property" implicitly creates a virtual subclass
of the defining class.
Greets, Thomas
On 11/12/2013 03:17 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 2:54 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
>> Hi,
>> is there a way to conveniently type (@type) a collection of nodes?
>> This could be useful to prevent repeated @type properties in cases like
>> this:
>>
>> [
>> {
>> "@context": ...,
>> "@id": "http://manu.sporny.org/about#manu",
>> "@type": "foaf:Person",
>> "name": "Manu Sporny",
>> "knows": "http://greggkellogg.net/foaf#me"
>> },
>> {
>> "@context": ...,
>> "@id": "http://greggkellogg.net/foaf#me",
>> "@type": "foaf:Person",
>> "name": "Gregg Kellogg",
>> "knows": "http://manu.sporny.org/about#manu"
>> }
>> ]
>>
>>
>> I thought about using @reverse but I think it is not possible to use it
>> with JSON-LD keywords.
> If you really want, you could use rdf:type and @reverse as follows
>
> {
> "@context": {
> ...
> "instances": { "@reverse": "rdf:type" }
> },
> "@id": "foaf:Person",
> "instances": [
> {
> "@id": "http://manu.sporny.org/about#manu",
> "name": "Manu Sporny",
> "knows": "http://greggkellogg.net/foaf#me"
> },
> {
> "@id": "http://greggkellogg.net/foaf#me",
> "name": "Gregg Kellogg",
> "knows": "http://manu.sporny.org/about#manu"
> }
> ]
> }
>
> ... but it looks rather strange IMO. An alternative would be to rely on
> entailment (setting the range of a property to the desired type).
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 05:54:17 UTC