W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Re: RDF 1.1 Primer

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 19:36:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+OuRR_-ssQPbGxnGaUW2MC9VZk4ShzbHis7uZ9hxtDdqidD5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Cc: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@bbc.co.uk>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Markus Lanthaler

> On Wednesday, December 04, 2013 6:21 PM, Yves Raimond wrote:
> > > It should be noted that the @context would usually be provided as an
> > > IRI, or even hidden in the HTTP headers, leaving only the "nice" JSON
> > > to be seen.
> > >
> [...]
> > It's now in mercurial - and an additional one with a remote context,
> > which makes the JSON pretty nice to look at.
> There's a typo in example 11, line 2. It has to be @context (the "@" is
> missing).
> I think it would be much more inviting if you would use example 11 as
> first example in section C.2 JSON-LD, then show the context and mention
> that it can also be embedded directly in the document and that prefixes can
> be used the same way as in Turtle and use the multiple-graphs example to
> illustrate it. I've cleaned up the examples and the context and attached
> all of them in a single file.

I thouht the same at first, but then I realized that the first example
might be easier to understand **when compared to the others**.
As I see it, the first example is using JSON-LD as "yet another" concrete
syntax for RDF, and uses a straightforward way to encode a given graph.
The second example assumes that the JSON was already existing in some API,
and was RDF-ized with a JSON-LD context.

> > One quick question - any
> > reason for mapping uri to @id instead of just reusing @id?
> As Pierre-Antoine already said it has advantages when working with the
> data but I nevertheless think we probably should stick to @id and @type in
> the primer as these are really advanced features.

As explained above, the idea was to make it look as if it came from any
API, not necessarily RDF- or JSONLD-aware

But I won't fight over it if there is a consensus to switch back to @id
(you would probably want to switch to @type as well, then?)


> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 18:37:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:36 UTC