- From: David I. Lehn <dil@lehn.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:18:37 -0500
- To: peter <peter.amstutz@curoverse.com>
- Cc: Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, "Kesterson, Robert D" <robert.d.kesterson@lmco.com>, John Walker <john.walker@semaku.com>, "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:36 AM, peter <peter.amstutz@curoverse.com> wrote: > It's not clear what the right answer to validating json-ld is. > json-schema is not ideal for the above reason, RDFS is not very > powerful, and OWL is not really intended for validation (so I'm told). > Are there other options? > Validation is a complex problem that hasn't been well addressed yet. Eventually tools and techniques will emerge. For now, you can get fairly far with json-schema tools. It's not semantic validation but can be good enough. The key is to get your data into a known JSON-LD structure then process it as if it were plain JSON. One way to do this is to just to restrict how the input data is structured. That's not very flexible but it can work for now. The other thing you can do is use the work-in-progress framing spec to frame your input data first. In either case json-schma tools can then be used. There are limitations to structural validation and this may not cover every type of validation but it works well. For more complex cases just write additional code. We've used this for the payswarm work and some other projects with some success. -dave
Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 20:19:04 UTC