W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2016

Re: JSON-LD Framing requires "@type"?

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:12:10 -0500
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>, Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56C3C8EA.7090109@digitalbazaar.com>
On 02/16/2016 07:51 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> 
> Dear JSON-LD folks,
> 
> (CC affected Annotation and SocialWeb WGs)
> 
> At TPAC last year, there was discussion that led to the recommendation
> of aliasing @id and @type to "id" and "type", if that is possible given
> existing json keys and structure.  For the Social Web WG and Annotation
> WG, we have followed this recommendation for our current JSON-LD based
> specs.
> 
> An issue generated for the Annotation group [1] was to provide JSON-LD
> frames to make it easier for developers to produce the required layout. 
> In working on that, it seems that the framing algorithm _requires_
> @type, and does not process the context looking for aliases.  Is that
> true and intentional?
> 
> An example in the playground:  http://tinyurl.com/hqsphco
> And the same result is obtained using the Python implementation.
> 
> To make both implementations work, I need to use @type in both the input
> graph and the frame document, despite the alias being present in the
> referenced (and processed) context doc.
> 
> Bug? Seems like a show-stopper for providing frames?

I don't see an alias "type" for the keyword "@type" in the context given
in the example. Instead "type" is mapped to "rdf:type".

Here's a more minimal example showing framing working with "type" as an
alias for "@type":

http://json-ld.org/playground/#/gist/a4080a8fa2ce7ddf624f


-- 
Dave Longley
CTO
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2016 01:12:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:47 UTC