W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2014

Context Questions

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:36:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUFPH8x9B5Uo5X0OtMe8WwpON2FHOp6CCyVid8iYL_RYvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Dear all,

Apologies if I'm missing something in the spec but ...

1.  Can a context document contain a list of further context documents?
For example, to inherit a context from an external specification into a
content document, one could define a context document (
example.org/context.json) with the representation:

{
  "@context" : [
    "http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/rdfa11",
    "http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/context.json",
    {
      "local" : "http://example.org/",
      "property" : {"@id" : "local:property"}
    }
  ]
}

I don't see anything that this violates?  So we can chain contexts all the
way down? Processors will correctly barf on circular references, where
context A includes context B, which includes context A?


2.  If a document contains an @context definition AND the response has a
context link header, which takes precedence?  In other words, is the link
header "seen" before the document's context, or vice versa?  Or is @context
in the document ignored when the response is application/json ... and if
so, is this a consistent rule?  Thus, any document that looks like JSON-LD
but has the regular JSON media type MUST NOT be processed as JSON-LD?  If
so, that's kinda harsh, especially in this early period where
application/ld+json isn't widely known.  (eg section 6.8)

And merging the two questions, if the local context referred to in a link
header references other context documents, then we should expect those
definitions to be processed?

Many thanks,

Rob
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 20:36:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:41 UTC