Re: EXTERNAL: Re: validation of json-ld to context schema

We have been using JSON-schema to do syntactic validation for the new
version of Open Badges (enforce required properties, data types, structure,
etc). Though it isn't any standard beyond our own, we devised a way to link
to the schema files from the context in order to declare that "contract"
like you felt there should be.

It took me a long time to figure out what JSON-LD was really for, I felt.
But now I'm happy with how we eventually figured out how to combine these
two technologies to do what we wanted to do.

Nate Otto, Developer
concentricsky.com

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014, 12:36 PM Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:

> On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Kesterson, Robert D <
> robert.d.kesterson@lmco.com> wrote:
>
>  Gregg and john,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the help…. Maybe I am expecting too much of json-ld and the
> tooling. What I expected was that an implementation of the json-ld would
> “validate” that the document was correct. Correct meaning that the document
> made a valid use of the vocabulary the context asserted that it used.
> Additionally, I expected that the implementation would have a form of type
> verification that is, assume the following:
>
>
>
> { "@context" : { "ex" : "http://example.org/" ,
>
>                         "sch" : "http://schema.org/",
>
>                 "actor" :  { "@id" : "ex:actor" ,  "@type" : "sch:Person"},
>
>                 "crime" : {"@id" : "ex:crime"}
>
>                         },
>
> "actor" : {
>
>    "@id" : "http://example.org/actor/1",
>
>    "@context" : {"@vocab" : "http://schema.org/"},
>
>    "name" : "Robert Paulson", "foo" : "bar" }
>
> }
>
>
>
> In this case I would expect the implementation would see that actor is a
> sch:person then populate the node with the @type and assert an @vocab of “
> http://schema.org/ and either error or ignore the foo term.
>
>
>
> My concern/wish is that if I use json-ld my code will need to I ensure
> that the document follows the contract that is made in the context. I am
> looking at the context as providing a set of element/node level xsd like
> schema definitions and that a json-ld implementation would validate that
> the document against those schema’s.  Not sure what value a format has if
> nothing is enforcing conformance, perhaps I don’t understand the use case
> well enough.
>
>
>
> Am I off base? Is Json-ld meant to be a self-defining message format?
>
> No, JSON-LD is just another syntax, like Turtle or Microdata. Validation
> is left to other tools. You can try http://linter.structured-data.org,
> which does validation against schema.org for most forms, including
> JSON-LD.
>
> Gregg
>
> Thank you
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> *From:* Gregg Kellogg [mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net
> <gregg@greggkellogg.net>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 04, 2014 1:33 PM
> *To:* Kesterson, Robert D
> *Cc:* public-linked-json@w3.org
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: validation of json-ld to context schema
>
>
>
> On Dec 3, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Kesterson, Robert D <
> robert.d.kesterson@lmco.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I found the schema.org context (by using the ACCEPT header and curl).
> However, what was returned confused me. I expected the context to layout
> the type/class hierarchy of the vocabulary but instead it provided a
> limited number of key names definitions.
>
>
>
> When I use Google Email Markup Tester it does validate the keys are
> allowed for a given type, but I don’t see how the context at schema.org
> provides the information that a type of Person exists. Hence my question is
> how is this validation done with schema.org? Not asking how goggle does
> it, but how does the spec direct the look up that a Person is a type?
>
>
>
> I auto-generate a schema.org context using code in my implementation (see
> https://github.com/ruby-rdf/json-ld/blob/develop/etc/schema.org.jsonld);
> it also includes the entire vocabulary definition (in this case, laid out
> for rendering using D3.js). Downside is that it is a bit chunky, but a
> JSON-LD processor using it as a context will ignore the vocabulary bits.
>
>
>
> Someday, Google may publish something more like this. I’ve encouraged Dan
> to use something like this, but the Ruby toolset has been a barrier for
> that infrastructure. But, I agree that a more complete context/vocabulary
> definition at http://schema.org/ would be a good idea. The HTTP version
> could use rel=describedby to reference the vocabulary too.
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>  Thank you,
>
>
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>