Re: RDF 1.1 Primer

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Markus Lanthaler
<markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>wrote:

> 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?)

  pa


>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>