- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 11:50:43 -0800
- To: Jakob.Voss@gbv.de
- Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
> On Feb 15, 2017, at 3:24 AM, Jakob Voß <Jakob.Voss@gbv.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am trying to map an existing JSON format [1] to JSON-LD and stumbled upon two issues that cannot be expressed in JSON-LD. Before giving up > on this, I'd like to know your opinion. > > > First, a JSON object contains two fields "document" and "organization" that are connected by an RDF properties. This minimal example: > > { > "@context": { "id": "@id" }, > "document": { "id": "a:document" }, > "organization": { "id": "an:organization" } > } > > Should result in at least one of these RDF statements: > > <a:document> holding:collectedBy <an:organization> . > <an:organization> holding:collects <a:document> . > > > Second, another JSON field "item" changes meaning depending on another field. The first example is easy to map from JSON-LD to an RDF statement: > > { > "id": "a:document", > "item": { "id": "an:item" } > } > > <a:document> holding:examplar <an:item> . > > > But if an additional subfield "part" is given, the property changes into > > { > "id": "a:document", > "item": { "id": "an:item", "part": "narrower" } > } > > <a:document> holding:narrowerExamplar <an:item> . > > or into > > { > "id": "a:document", > "item": { "id": "an:item", "part": "broader" } > } > > <a:document> holding:broaderExamplar <an:item> . > > > Could these cases be handled in JSON-LD 1.1? The mechanisms JSON-LD 1.1 provides that might be useful are scoped contexts. You can scope either by a property (e.g., “Item”) or a type. To provide a different interpretation of “item” would require that the “@type” for “a:document” provide a context that defines a different interpretation of “item”. Otherwise, there is no reasonable hook to try to differentiate between uses. Gregg > For the first issue (which might be more common in other people's data) I have not found a workaround yet. > > A workaround for the second issue with some oss of semantic could be to ignore the additional field "part" and use a more fuzzy super-property of holding:examplar, holding:narrowerExamplar, and holding:broaderExamplar. > > > Thanks! > Jakob > > > [1] If curious see http://gbv.github.io/daia/ and my current draft > of a context document at https://github.com/gbv/daia/issues/34 > > -- > Jakob Voß <jakob.voss@gbv.de> > Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG) / Common Library Network > Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1, 37073 Göttingen, Germany > +49 (0)551 39-10242, http://www.gbv.de/ >
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 19:58:57 UTC