Re: JSON Schema (json-schema.org) support?

Hi Markus,

The main purpose of this exercise is to link the schema to the document 
- yes.
We use the Link header today in out solution to announce the 
corresponding JSON schema,
with this I just wanted to propose a way link them in-band.
In this solution it is intended that the client dereferences the type 
and then will
get a JSON schema and if he understands JSON schema, he can do what a 
schema is
useful for: introspect. I know that this is a little bit naive an you 
don't like it
but then allow me the following question:
What is the actual value of having a type which is not intended to be 
dereferenced
and I'm especially thinking about the schema.org "things"?
Is this the point where I'm supposed to hardcode strings like 
http://schema.org/Place
and match it? Wouldn't it be more sensible to dereference also the type 
to learn more
about about its anatonomy?

One more thing:
Is a trailing '#' an indicator that a IRI is not dereferencable?

greets, Thomas

On 09/27/2013 06:08 PM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> Hi Thomas
>
> On Thursday, September 26, 2013 4:51 PM, Thomas Hoppe wrote:
>> Say I have a JSON schma backed address resource like this:
>>
>>    {
>>      "id": "123",
>>      "street": "Street",
>>      "postcode": "000",
>>      "city": "Somecity",
>>      "country": "DE",
>>      "latitude": 0,
>>      "longitude": 0
>>    }
>>
>> And that it's schema is  https://meta.example.de/schemas/address
>>
>> I would suggest to enrich it with the following
>> to make it a JSON-LD document with a reference to a JSON schema:
>>
>>    {
>>      "@context": {
>>        "@vocab": "https://meta.example.de/schemas/"   <-- Prefix IRI for
> rest of the node
>>      },
>>      "@id": "123",
>>      "@type": "address",                              <-- Node-type
> [...]
>> I make use the schema's URI as an IRI of the node type.
>> This should be valid as to my best knowledge, JSON-LD does not
>> mandate what to be expect if node type is dereferenced (correct me if
>> I'm wrong). What do you thin about this approach?
> Yes, this is syntactically correct. The question however is why you would do
> something like that? The URLs don't dereference (you would need a # at the
> end instead of a /) and even if they would, what would a client be supposed
> to do with the retrieved schema? Are you just trying to link the document to
> the schema? Have you considered to use an HTTP Link header instead?
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>

Received on Friday, 27 September 2013 20:02:49 UTC