W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2017

Re: Implicit and conditional statements

From: Henry Andrews <henry@cloudflare.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 13:28:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CANp5f1O74dPd8gzoaKs+cBjCbt2btMkDPmCR+9o-c3NFLUCXww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jakob Voß <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
Cc: public-linked-json@w3.org
HI Jakob,
  Something that came up at the F2F in Santa Clara last week was the idea
of more effectively using both JSON Schema and JSON-LD in the same
document.  In particular the Thing Description is a JSON-LD document that
uses JSON Schema in some specific areas.  Exactly how that should all work
is something I'm looking into and will be discussing with Gregg Kellogg and
presumably others on the linked data mailing lists.

  One option that was raised was making JSON Schema a vocabulary available
for reference through JSON-LD.  I'm also trying to sort out how JSON Schema
validation works with JSON-LD's declaration of @type and with shape
validation.  There seemed to be some agreement that all of these things
were useful in different ways, but (at least in my head) the boundaries are
still a little fuzzy.  Gregg's given me some stuff to think about and
research so hopefully I can have some concrete examples for feedback soon.

  In the meantime, I'm glad you've found a more clear way to get this use
case addressed :-)

thanks,
-henry


On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Jakob Voß <jakob.voss@gbv.de> wrote:

> Hi and thanks for the answer,
>
> Henry Andrews wrote:
>
> > Hmm... JSON Schema has mechanisms for this sort of conditional
> *structural*
> > change.  The "oneOf" and "dependencies" keywords in the current draft
> (and
> > soon-to-be-published Draft 06), plus the "if"/"then"/"else" keywords that
> > seem likely to be added in Draft 07 (which may cause us to drop
> > "dependencies" because it's confusing and would then be superfluous).
> >
> > So a question for me is, is this a situation where a more clear
> integration
> > of JSON Schema with JSON-LD would be useful here, or is there some other
> > JSON-LD-related concept that is better suited for this?
>
> So the JSON document would need to be modified by an
> not-yet-standardized mechanism of JSON Schema to get another JSON that
> can be read as JSON-LD? Sounds like a a possible but complex pathway for
> some day in the future.
>
> I realized that the first of my issues can be generalized as support of
> reification in JSON-LD, so I created
> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/466
>
> Jakob
>



-- 

   -

   *Henry Andrews*  |  Systems Engineer
   henry@cloudflare.com
   <https://www.cloudflare.com/>

   1 888 99 FLARE  |  www.cloudflare.com
   -
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2017 21:29:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:49 UTC