- From: Grahame Grieve <grahame@healthintersections.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:17:00 +1100
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>, Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Message-ID: <CAG47hGbt0XH=37niyN0vKw_m2Z=6Dg5KgEn9cB55kTrFiiU1RA@mail.gmail.com>
hi So I've been doing more research on json-ld, and I've come across this statement: In the example above, the name term <http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#dfn-term> is overridden in the more deeply nested details structure. Note that this is rarely a good authoring practice and is typically used when working with legacy applications that depend on a specific structure of the JSON object <http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#dfn-json-object>. That sounds pretty weird to me. Take this json: { "person" : { "dob" : "1975-01-01", "name" : { "family" : "Smith", "given" : "Joe" } }, "organization" : { "name" : "Acme" } Are you saying that this is not a good authoring practice? Do you need to expand the parent name into the child, like person-name, and organization-name? That sounds so stupid I can only think I've mis-understood Grahame On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: > On Mar 17, 2015, at 3:11 PM, Grahame Grieve < > grahame@healthintersections.com.au> wrote: > > but my point was, if you have "@context" : "http://hl7.org/fhir/ > StructureDefinition/Substance", you don't need "resourceType": "Substance" > > Presumably the @context information makes it's way into the RDF somehow? > > > Nothing in the @context directly causes any RDF to be generated, only when > terms in the context are used within the JSON does it provide the “context” > to know how to generate something. Typically, this is confined to turning > terms and prefixed names into IRIs, or for knowing if the value of a > property has a datatype, language or is an IRI. > > The important thing to remember about the context is that it does not > provide any content itself, simply a _context_ for the JSON so that it can > be properly interpreted. The complexity of handling a context typically > comes from the need to round-trip JSON through expansion and compaction, or > even through some other RDF format. Given that multiple terms can resolve > to the same IRI but with different container or datatypes, this can be > challenging. Adding more information to a term definition which has content > associated with it would make it more challenging still. > > There have been previous discussions about doing more in the context, for > example providing a sub-context that would take effect for values of a > particular term. There also seems to be some thought that a term definition > might provide some data which could be emitted, such as an rdf:type triple; > this seems less likely for a future group to take up. > > At some point, the different feature requests that would go into a JSON-LD > 1.1 or 2.0 would need to be vetted and used to create a charter for a new > group. Of course, members with adequate free time to do this also need to > be found, and most of the original authors/editors are pretty committed > right now typically putting JSON-LD to use for other specifications. But, > given popular support, a WG with a charter to advance JSON-LD to address > shortcomings and/or features of the current spec seems like it is > inevitable. > > A number of features to be considered for the next JSON-LD version are > tracked on github [1]. Consider creating a new feature request if it isn’t > covered. > > Gregg > > [1] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/milestones/JSON-LD.next > > Grahame > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:08 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > >> This question came up here: >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/ >> 2015Mar/0065.html >> >> Is it possible to generate an RDF triple without an explicit property in >> the JSON-LD? Instead of having to write: >> >> { >> "@context" : "http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/Substance", >> "resourceType": "Substance", >> ... >> } >> >> it would be nice if we could just write: >> >> { >> "@context" : "http://hl7.org/fhir/StructureDefinition/Substance", >> ... >> } >> >> but still generate an RDF triple like: >> >> _:foo fhir:resourceType fhir:Substance . >> >> Is this possible? >> >> Thanks, >> David Booth >> >> > > > -- > ----- > http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame@healthintersections.com.au > / +61 411 867 065 > > > -- ----- http://www.healthintersections.com.au / grahame@healthintersections.com.au / +61 411 867 065
Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 11:17:29 UTC