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

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

From: Thomas Hoppe <thomas.hoppe@n-fuse.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:02:20 +0200
Message-ID: <5245E44C.3080405@n-fuse.de>
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
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 
and I'm especially thinking about the schema.org "things"?
Is this the point where I'm supposed to hardcode strings like 
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:39 UTC