Re: Minimal WPUB for a scholarly paper (of sort)

Laurent is correct. Because Schema.org's context file [1] defines `"@vocab": "http://schema.org/"` anything not currently defined within the context fill will still be mapped to that URL space.


Here's a JSON-LD playground example of the current wiki:

https://tinyurl.com/y7fgat9t


The quick and dirty solution is to use the same "greediness" of the `@vocab` to prevent that behavior until either we or Schema.org define it.


To do that in JSON-LD, we'd change the example documents `@context` line to read:

```

  "@context": ["https://schema.org", {"@vocab": null}],

```


That will make any JSON-LD processor ignore anything it doesn't find in the schema.org context file.


Hope that helps!

Benjamin


[1] https://schema.org/docs/jsonldcontext.json


--

http://bigbluehat.com/

http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung

________________________________
From: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 10:14:13 AM
To: Ivan Herman
Cc: Hadrien Gardeur; W3C Publishing Working Group
Subject: Re: Minimal WPUB for a scholarly paper (of sort)




  *   I've tried the example in the JSON-LD playground and resources is not ignored, it's mapped to http://schema.org/resources instead (I don't think there's a solution for that issue if we don't roll out our own JSON-LD context document)

It is my mistake: I should have checked!

There is a solution: we do not use the term "resources"… We have to use a term that is _not_ a schema.org<http://schema.org/> term. I have changed the examples to use "publ-resources" for now, and we can have then an enjoyable set of bike shedding to find a suitable name...


"resource" is not a schema.org<http://schema.org> term (-> 404) but the property  is extended with a schema.org<http://schema.org> prefix because of the default context.


  *   too bad that we don't have a rel value for the object representations in resources, this would allow us to re-use existing rel values such as privacy-policy or contents

Agreed, and it may one of the items we would have to see with schema.org<http://schema.org/>. I guess that, for the purpose of WPUB, we can agree to use the http://schema.org/disambiguatingDescription term for something like that, but a controlled vocabulary may have been better indeed.


If I remember well, the initial "news" extension of schema.org<http://schema.org> was a mess and the IPTC consortium was active to make it a correct set of properties. The W3C Publishing group could do the same -> work on schema.org<http://schema.org>

Best
Laurent