W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > February 2013

Re: JSON-LD Context URI

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:57:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPRnXtkktT0=9AYWfh8TE1U59OMf8w=VJo5_T5a+pkzry_x4tg@mail.gmail.com>
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 &quot; 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:22 UTC