Re: expansion algorithm 5.1.2.7

> On Jun 22, 2018, at 2:22 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com> wrote:
> 
> Any such inference is at the RDFS layer. For processing, you may find it easier to coerce most things to arrays, but that’s up to your implementation.

Got it. I really should have said something like “term which ought to expand to an IRI which under typical downstream circumstances would be expected to refer to an rdfs:Class or subclass thereof” but I thought it a bit too lawyery. I see that §5.1.2.9.4.4 asserts that the value associated with `@type` should be a string or array of strings.

> Sounds about right.

Thanks; I think writing out my own bullet-list interpretation also helped me understand what’s going on here. By my reading, if you specify `@type` in a hash/dictionary/whatever, and that type has its own context, then by all rights the other members of the hash should be evaluated with the amalgamation of those contexts. If there is more than one context, then any clobbering that might happen will happen in lexical order.

Does this mean that the keys in the §5.1.2.7 loop should also be sorted lexically?

--
Dorian Taylor
Make things. Make sense.
https://doriantaylor.com