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

Re: JSON-LD Context URI

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:08:00 +0100
Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9DF806A1-AC40-4E5E-B704-E02A40170078@w3.org>
To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Unfortunately, no

Ivan
On Feb 27, 2013, at 16:57 , Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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


----
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
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 16:08:59 UTC

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