W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > January 2015

Re: JSON-LD context file at schema.org - request for feedback

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 17:28:48 +0100
Message-ID: <54BFD3C0.3080302@wwelves.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 01/21/2015 04:47 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ wrote:
> On 01/21/2015 02:05 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> Hello JSON-LD people!
>>
>> I'm looking for a sanity check on the basic functionality of
>> schema.org's JSON-LD context file.
>>
>> The context is content negotiable from the site homepage but also
>> available at  http://schema.org/docs/jsonldcontext.json.txt
>>
>> I realise it could potentially contain more information, e.g. actual
>> schema assertions. But for now I would mostly appreciate review on
>> whether it meets community expectations around the basics.
>>
>> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/51 records an open issue
>> regarding properties that might take either strings or URLs as values.
>> I understand that for these, instance data can always use a "long
>> form" and datatype accordingly, so the concern is more about
>> defaulting when this isn't done. The relevant Python code is
>> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/blob/master/api.py#L434
>>
>> http://schema.org/namedPosition takes both Text and URL values. The
>> current context says
>>
>>         "namedPosition": { "@type": "@id" },
>>
>> which I believe means  "namedPosition": { "@value": "Quarterback" } is
>> needed to override this.
>>
>> My feeling from the github discussion is that we should suppress this
>> and default to text. E.g. Gregg commented that
>>
>> "When I generate my own JSON-LD context for schema.org I do not set
>> @type to @id for properties where the range includes schema:text (or
>> similar literal value). IMO, it's more intuitive for an author to use
>> {"@id": "/foo"} than {"@value": "foo"}."
>>
>> I'd like to close out our basic context support before getting into
>> any fancier business such as exposing the actual schema data, so any
>> feedback on this or related points would be much appreciated.
> Thanks Dan,
> 
> Yesterday during Credentials CG call[1] I brought up issue in
> http://schema.org related to NOT including mapping in @context
> 
>  "url": "@id"
> 
> Open Badges Technical Specification[2] currently also uses url and maps
> it[3]:
> 
>   "schema": "http://schema.org/",
>   "url": { "@id": "schema:url", "@type": "@id" }
> 
> I also couldn't find past conversations about this issue even that
> recall seeing them somewhere...

BTW https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/wiki/JsonLd

* discuss whether url should be an alias of JSON-LD's @id keyword


> 
> My main concerns relates to ending up with lots of not intentional
> *blank nodes* if people use url and leave out @id!
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> [1] http://opencreds.org/minutes/2015-01-20/#64
> [2] http://standard.openbadges.org/
> [3] http://standard.openbadges.org/1.1/context.json
> 



Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2015 16:29:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:43 UTC