- From: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:58:44 +0100
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
On 11/13/2013 12:08 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 11:51 AM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
>> I have just wrapped my head around a very subtle detail of the spec
>> regarding IRI resolution.
>> Say I'd like to have a node like this:
>>
>> {
>> "@context": {
>> "label": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label"
>> },
>> "@id": "4711",
>> "label": "Just a simple document"
>> }
>>
>> Which has been retrieved from this URI:
>>
>> http://api.example.com/docs/4711
>>
>> Following the statements and definitions in sections "6.1 Base IRI" and
>> "5.2 IRIs" one could think that the resulting IRI is:
>>
>> http://api.example.com/docs/47114711
> Why? That's not how relative IRI resolution works. JSON-LD works exactly the
> same way as, e.g, HTML or CSS in this regard.
Well look at the example "Example 7: IRIs can be relative" given in
section 5.2.
which uses "../" as @id one could deduce that if there are no slashes in the
@id that they are just concatenated.
However, if it is defined in the API as you state below I'm happy :)
>
>> Most people familiar with URL concepts know or instinctively feel that
>> this is incorrect
>> but from what I can see it is not defined in the spec.
> It is defined in the API spec [1] (e.g. in [2] and [3]) which is where it
> belongs because the processing is described there. The syntax spec just
> defines the syntax.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Markus
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api/#context-processing-algorithm
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api/#iri-expansion
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 11:59:16 UTC