- From: Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:58:11 +0000
- To: public-linked-json@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAPk0ugnDCVh=XtvV_oN4nGHVKJ3a93duA=i+wHH3rSFjU1BZMA@mail.gmail.com>
Pardon the incomplete message. Apparently it's quite easy to send an incomplete message if you hit "tab, enter" in Google Inbox. Continuing from where I left off, I was thinking something like this for the extension's context document: { "@context": { "newProperty": { "@id": "http://iri.org/def", "@type": "@id" }, }, "http://openbadges.org/definitions/schemaValidation": " http://extension.org/ext1schema" } Is putting extra properties outside of the "@context" object in a linked context document okay? I've never seen an example of that, but it doesn't seem like it would fit inside the @context object either, because we're not trying to create a new term-IRI mapping. A second question: Back in the extended badge, if an issuer adds an extension object with a scoped @context inside, that internal context won't map the property that actually contains the extension, so it will be a blank node. You can see on slide 15 of the presentation I linked that I was playing around with a few ideas to answer these questions. Declaring a mapping for the extension property itself in the badge object's main context array, and declaring a schema based on the IRI or type that it validates rather than assuming that there would just be one schema validator per extension. Thanks anyone for taking a look. I appreciate your time and all the many years of discussion that has brought JSON-LD to this point. *Nate Otto, Developer* concentricsky.com (and member of the Badge Alliance Standard Working Group) On Thu Oct 30 2014 at 4:47:20 PM Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working with a team representing the Badge Alliance ( > http://badgealliance.org) to update the Open Badges metadata > specification to become JSON-LD. We have been collaborating with the W3C's > Credentials Community Group since its formation and have been producing > various JSON-LD prototypes since July. > > While most digital badges from gaming and social platforms like Foursquare > are locked into the system that created them, Open Badges are portable > because follow a standard data spec for attaching information about > accomplishments to an image file. Earners can then take that image file > wherever they want to display their accomplishments, and consumers can read > the badge metadata embedded within it to learn in detail what the badge > meant and verify its authenticity. Open Badges use JSON "baked" into PNG or > SVG files and duplicated on issuer's servers for verification. Each badge > is composed of an Assertion (which applies to one earner), a Badge Class > (which describes the accomplishment and may be awarded to many earners) and > an Issuer definition (which describes the person or organization awarding > the badge). See the existing 1.0 specification here: > https://github.com/openbadges/openbadges-specification/blob/master/Assertion/latest.md > > We're pretty close to finalizing a proposal to add @context definitions to > badges, but I hoped to get some feedback from people who have more > experience working with JSON-LD. > > Here's a slide deck explaining the changes we hope to make: > > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dWMU2gdnfjBPRJTCcCDOJrs0xSgCwNc-IOUdjq9gRmw/edit?usp=sharing > > > Particularly, I hope to get some feedback on our proposal for > "extensions", which go beyond basic JSON-LD's ability to map new properties > to IRIs that define them. We want to allow issuers to add new properties > inside JSON objects { } that have their own @context property, scoped just > to the new additions. One thing we wanted to make an optional addition to > an extension like this would be the ability to specify a JSON-schema > document that could define some acceptable data types, and regexes, and > allow some degree of automated validation of whether two different issuers > both implemented an extension to the satisfaction of the extension designer. > > So, extension designers may define a context document and a schema > document, and many issuers may implement them in badges by adding a JSON > object to a badge object like this: > > "extension1": { > "@context": "http://extension.org/ext1context" > "newProperty": "some value" > } > > Having a context document linked gives the extension designer a chance to > link to the schema they'd like to use for validation, but I'm not > experienced enough with JSON-LD to be sure of how I should connect context > and schema without being sure to not cause problems. > > I was thinking something like this for the extension's context document: > > { "@context": { > > } } > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2014 23:58:39 UTC