- From: Ron Siemens <rsiemens77@hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 11:10:51 -0700
- To: "public-linked-json@w3.org" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BAY177-W40B69D52C969B0BBB7EC35D7E00@phx.gbl>
Hi Markus. I appreciate the tips, thanks!
> A branch...
> {
> "id":"200",
> "name":"root_branch",
> "branches":[ { "id":"201", "name":"sub1_branch" },
> { "id":"202", "name":"sub2_branch" } ],
> "leaves":[ { "id":"500", "name":"leaf1" },
> { "id":"501", "name":"leaf3" },
> { "id":"502", "name":"leaf4" } ],
> "age":"20"
> }
...
>> I'd like a separate @context for each. Something that I could use for
>> a header-linked context that exposes the links into the structure.
>
>.. but this won't work if you also want to be able to browse the resulting
>documents as a client wouldn't know how to expand "leaf3" to a full URL.
>Would it be a problem to change the names to include the directory
>("leaf/leaf3" instead of just "leaf3")?
It seems there must be other approaches to this, since I believe modifying an existing data model would be undesirable and a last resort. In my case, these representations are used by existing systems that must remain compatible: which is why I'm going with the header-linked approach.
Can the context not help in some way here? Different namespaces for the various "name" fields perhaps? Or using the property names ( "branches", "leaves" ) to disambiguate the values?
If the limitation is just due to off-the-shelf clients to browse this, I'd rather implement my own client than mess with my data model and representations.
Ron
Received on Monday, 20 April 2015 18:11:19 UTC