- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:08:00 +0100
- To: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
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 " 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