W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > June 2018

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 17:05:07 +0200
Cc: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A572532E-8E50-4E10-8DAC-FE1170A09A84@w3.org>
To: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>

(This is not a direct answer to this mail only, it is the whole thread…)

- First of all oops, I missed the fact that the schema.org <http://schema.org/> also defines @vocab, so using the hyphen space does not buy us anything…

- Unfortunately, Hadrien is right: at this moment at least google does not handle JSON-LD properly in terms of @context. I *believe* (to be checked) that this means they would not download extra context files, but they may do more than just take the context line; consider the JSON-LD example at[1] (although all those extra namespaces are also in the schema.org <http://schema.org/> context…)  This may change in the near future, though, so I would expect some simple manipulations may work, eventually. 

I do not remember who maintained the list of issues we will have to discuss with them (I think it was Dave), but this issue should certainly  be discussed.  

- Benjamin's solution, ie, :

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

does work in terms of JSON-LD 1.0. But it may have downsides: my reading of the context file is that the only way terms that are defined in extensions (like [1]) are mapped to their canonical counterpart, ie, onto schema.org <http://schema.org/>, is through the usage of "@vocab". Ie, touching that may be a problem.

However, the following seems to work:

"@context": [
    "https://schema.org <https://schema.org/>",
    {
      "publ-resources" : null
    }
  ],

ie, which explicitly takes that term "out" of the generated data. We would have only 2-3 such terms (resources and toc, plus something for default reading order), so this may be the simplest…

Ivan




[1] http://bib.44.20180402t222137.schemaorgae.appspot.com/Thesis <http://bib.44.20180402t222137.schemaorgae.appspot.com/Thesis>

> On 4 Jun 2018, at 16:44, Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org <mailto:laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>> wrote:
> 
> Is Google so weak? Can't believe it...
> 
> L
> 
> 
>> Le 4 juin 2018 à 16:42, Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com <mailto:hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>> a écrit :
>> 
>> This was an option that I pointed out as well during the meeting. Given the fact that we'll need terms from bib.schema.org <http://bib.schema.org/> as well (and probably other vocabularies as well), this feels like a good approach.
>> 
>> The main issue with rolling our own context seems to be that Google wouldn't be able to properly parse and index these metadata.
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>


Received on Monday, 4 June 2018 15:05:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:27 UTC