- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 15:33:52 +0000
- To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
To add what @Jimflip said: please look at - the [Web Annotation Model](http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/) document, that defines the annotation structures in JSON that happens to be JSON-LD (it does include a single `@context`) - the JSON-LD [`@context`](http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/vocab/wd/#json-ld-context) is defined in the separate (RDF) [vocabulary document](http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/vocab/wd/), mapping the Annotation structures to RDF (if needed) - we also have a JSON-LD [frame](http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/vocab/wd/#json-ld-frames) that allows any valid JSON-LD encoding of the RDF vocabulary be represented the way it is defined in the Annotation Model document. Note that the vocabulary (ie, the ontology) itself has been hand-crafted in Turtle. One of the exit criteria of that document is to prove that the `@context` we define maps the JSON version onto an RDF graph that is indeed valid per the ontology. We have a number of implementers who use the JSON encoding as defined in the Annotation Model document, and they do not care about RDF. For them, that document defines a JSON encoding. Others care about the RDF aspect, and they use it accordingly. I believe that approach (also used by the Social Web WG) can be reproduced by the POE work (and may already been done in our model document, in fact). As for the remark of @stuartmyles : the JSON encoding _is_ necessary, I believe, ie, it should not be generated by the ontology because there are different ways to represent a graph in JSON-LD. As he says, we would loose interoperability if we did differently. -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/46#issuecomment-267064925 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 15:33:58 UTC