Re: WA and JSON-LD default context

Just to be clear, [1] does NOT attempt to define a default context for
JSON-LD.  It says:

The same list of prefixes have also been defined for JSON-LD as a JSON-LD
> Context <http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#the-context> at the URI
> http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/rdfa11; JSON-LD users can use the
> @context key with that URI as a shorthand to use the same prefixes.


[1] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1


On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
wrote:

> On May 6, 2016, at 13:36, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
> +Cc Gregg, who knows the answer better than I do. Note, however, that he
> is currently on vacations…
>
> On 6 May 2016, at 12:12, Hugo Manguinhas <Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We have a question about JSON-LD that might be of interest to this group.
>
> As part of our efforts to move forward towards more advanced modelling
> scenarios, we have been debating the need for a JSON-LD context for
> ourselves (extending the WA) to reduce the number of prefix declarations
> and eventually further simplify the labels by even removing the prefix as
> it is currently being done in WA spec.
>
> While looking at the best practices we stumbled across the “RDFa Core
> Initial Context” [1] which also defines a default context for JSON-LD with
> a list of default prefixes. We were wondering if you might know how
> normative this specification is since it is not mentioned in the JSON-LD
> specification
>
>
> It is not normative, afaik. (As opposed to the usage of the RDFa Initial
> Context.) I do not know whether tools implement it by default; I would not
> expect so.
>
>
> There is no default initial context for JSON-LD. Best practice would be
> for the group to define one in their namespace (e.g., http://w3.org/ns/wa)
> in include within it prefixes you would like to be available, along with
> other appropriate term definitions. The CSVW group took this approach [1].
>
> and if there is significant adoption (I guess that this is only critical
> for RDF engines). My understanding is that there should be still a way to
> explicitly state the default context (at least for back compatibility),
> either at the protocol level or context level.
>
>
> I am not sure I understand the remark: of course, any JSON-LD can refer to
> that context, that is why it was created…
>
>
> JSON-LD needs to explicitly reference one or more contexts, which may also
> be inline.
>
> Gregg
>
> [1] http://w3.org/ns/csvw
>
> Ivan
>
>
> Btw, with regards to WA specs (and also Open Annotation), and if this
> really happens to be normative, it might be relevant to make some note
> about it in both the model and protocol specs... or even explicitly import
> the default in the current WA context.
>
> Looking forward to your feedback...
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1
>
> Best regards,
> *Hugo Manguinhas*
> Technical R&D Coordinator
>
>
> T: +31 (0)70 314 0998
> M:
> E: hugo.manguinhas@europeana.eu
> Skype: hugo.manguinhas
>
>
>
> *Be part of Europe's online cultural movement - join the Europeana Network
> Association: http://bit.ly/NetworkAssociation
> <http://bit.ly/NetworkAssociation>*
>
>  *#AllezCulture!*
> Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
> and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
> system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not
> disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender
> immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete
> this email from your system.
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops