- From: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:47:25 -0800
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Cc: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
I am sorry I saw this too late to attend the telecon this morning. I was unaware of @vocab, and I am currently thinking about it. I was also unaware that @base had been explicitly dropped because of the worthy goal of reducing variability. I will follow up later this week after seeing the minutes of your call. Jeremy On Feb 26, 2013, at 3:23 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > Thanks for your feedback. We had support for @base in the past but decided > to drop it to decrease the number of ways an IRI can be expressed. Is there > a specific use case that cannot be solved using any of the existing > mechanisms? Or is it just that it would be handy in some cases? > > Personally, I'm very concerned about adding yet another mechanism to express > IRIs. We already have: > > - document-relative IRIs > - absolute IRIs > - terms > - compact IRIs > - @vocab as a global prefix for properties and values > coerced to @vocab > > Is it really a problem to express the "custom base" using a prefix? Could > @vocab be used? > > >> I note that (3, the most powerful mechanism, best supports >> reuse of existing JSON (Zero Edits, most of the time) > > There are many things that would help in that regard - the most powerful > technique probably being IRI templates (see ISSUE-108 [1]). But, at the same > time, we must be very careful to not introduce too much variability. > Requiring a developer to keep track of 3 (or more) base IRIs is very > problematic in my opinion. > > As you might already noticed we added your request to the agenda of today's > telecon [2]. It's open for everyone, so please feel free to join. > > > Cheers, > Markus > > > [1] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/108 > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Feb/0200.html > > > -- > Markus Lanthaler > @markuslanthaler > > > > > ------------ Original message -------------- > From: Jeremy J Carroll [mailto:jjc@syapse.com] > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:21 PM > To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org > Subject: comment on JSON-LD 1.0: no @base support > > > Hi > > this is a comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-syntax/ > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-json-ld-syntax-20120712/ > > This is a formal comment, in that I would appreciate a response before > JSON-LD exits last call. > > Short form: > please add an optional attribute @base to be included as a Syntax Token > and Keyword > > Long form: > > JSON-LD appears to provide two abbreviation mechanisms: prefixing and > relative URIs > > The draft provides good support for prefixing; but not much support for > relative URIs, in particular no mechanism corresponding to section 5.1.1 of > RFC 3986. > > Three different designs would be: > 1) allow an @base name/value pair at the top level of the JSON-LD document > to specify a base URI applicable to the whole document > [simple] > > 2) allow an @base name/value pair at any level of the JSON-LD document to > specify a base URI applicable to the scope of the document (scoped liked the > @context) > [more powerful] > > 3) allow an @base inside the context, and to have the same scope as an > @language within the Context > [can be funky when multiple contexts are in separate documents, perhaps each > specifying different @base's with relative URIs …. !!!] > > > Any one of these would adequately address the comment. > > I note that (3, the most powerful mechanism, best supports reuse of existing > JSON (Zero Edits, most of the time) > > > thanks > > Jeremy J. Carroll > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 17:47:56 UTC