- From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:57:11 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Sadly I think it's not valid RDFa 1.1..! :-( Any better suggestion on how to make the RDFa? On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 11:56 , Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> The site could also do RDFa which I just pasted into the oa.html - >> thus Ivan should now be happy. > > You see how easy it is to make me happy? :-) > > Ivan > > >> I had to do some manual search-replace >> of " to " here and there - the conversion tool is not perfect. >> >> >> Obviously this is not a very reproduceable setup, but we can try to >> script something. (There's a REST interface to the converter) --- and >> we should also give some PROVenance of how this was made! ;-) >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes >> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>> That sounds like a good workaround! OWL ontologies in JSON-LD is a bit >>> unusual; but I guess it would work. >>> >>> I'll have a look if we can do some kind of conversion (given an >>> OWL/RDFS context); then we can just semi-concatenate in the @context. >>> Maintaining the ontology in JSON-LD as the raw format might or might >>> not work well. >>> >>> One issue is that JSON clients might not be good at content >>> negotiations; so the official @context should probably include the >>> .json extension (or equivalent) - I guess this is OK - just like we >>> have http://www.w3.org/ns/oa.ttl and http://www.w3.org/ns/oa.rdf >>> already. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> A slight hiccup... the location that we specified in the most recent >>>> version of the spec for the default JSON-LD context document isn't >>>> actually available to use. The W3C uses the /ns/ directory >>>> exclusively for namespace documents, and the context document doesn't >>>> count. W3C doesn't have a /contexts/ yet (and may never have one), we >>>> don't have a /TR/ space as a community group, so we'd be back to >>>> putting it in openannotation.org. This is undesirable for when we >>>> move further into the standards process, of course. >>>> >>>> We could have a PURL redirect and swap it from one to the other, but >>>> then we would lose the versioning information and just adds an >>>> additional hop for processors to follow. >>>> >>>> We're discussing the issue on the JSON-LD list, please feel free to >>>> join in if it's of interest to you, but one interesting proposal is as >>>> below. >>>> The original thread is here: >>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2013Feb/0152.html >>>> >>>> ----- >>>>> As the W3C (thank you Ivan) lets us >>>>> publish our namespace documents, we figured that they'd also let us >>>>> publish the JSON-LD context file, but they don't have anything in >>>>> place for doing that yet. >>>> >>>> I didn't know that. If that's the case, why don't combine your namespace >>>> document with your external context? The external context would end up being >>>> slightly bigger, but that shouldn't really matter. That even has the >>>> advantage that your namespace document is available as JSON-LD and there >>>> won't be an additional round-trip to fetch its definitions. >>>> >>>> So, what I mean is this. You upload a JSON-LD document describing your >>>> vocabulary. In that document you also include an @context element at the >>>> top-level JSON object. You can even use that local context when describing >>>> your vocab. >>>> >>>> { >>>> "@context": { >>>> ... >>>> }, >>>> ... your vocabulary ... >>>> } >>>> >>>> When retrieving an external context, a JSON-LD will ignore everything but >>>> the context. Et voila, everything works as expected. You have your context >>>> at a stable location and even reduced the number of necessary roundtrips if >>>> you need, e.g., the labels for some properties. >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> >>>> This seems extremely attractive to me, at least. We wouldn't have to >>>> maintain two separate files (ontology in JSON-LD and context would be >>>> the same document) and processors would still do the right thing. >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team >>> School of Computer Science >>> The University of Manchester >> >> >> >> -- >> Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team >> School of Computer Science >> The University of Manchester >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes, myGrid team School of Computer Science The University of Manchester
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 15:57:58 UTC