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

Re: [FHIR JSON-LD] Possible to generate implied triples from @context?

From: Grahame Grieve <grahame@healthintersections.com.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:17:00 +1100
Message-ID: <CAG47hGbt0XH=37niyN0vKw_m2Z=6Dg5KgEn9cB55kTrFiiU1RA@mail.gmail.com>
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>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:44 UTC