- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 17:28:14 +0100
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>
- Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, W3C RDFa Community <public-rdfa@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <14694FFB-4684-4068-820C-BF9E7E105081@w3.org>
--- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) > On 7 Jan 2017, at 08:07, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com> wrote: > >> On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >> My apologies, you are right. I mixed up with the csvw context. >> >> That being said, I wonder whether it would be a good idea to provide a general json-ld context with those prefixes, to be kept on /ns. We may want to see that with the JSON-LD community; it is not a big deal to have it and it may come handy. > > Prefix.cc maintains a JSON-LD context with a number of prefixes [1]. W3C could certainly host another, which would just be a subset of the CSVW context. > > I suspect we could automatically create such a context from the namespaces in www.w3.org/ns. > Yes, but I wouldn't do that; being in ns doesn't mean it is stable. What I would propose to do is to have a strict copy of the rdfa default context entries in json ld (which is indeed a subset of tge one in csvw). Can a context file refer to another one? Because then we could exchange the list of prefixes from the csvw context in favour of the separate one. Ivan >> Ivan > > [1] https://prefix.cc/about/json-ld > >>>> On 7 Jan 2017, at 00:46, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jan 5, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Two entries have been added to the list of "reserved" prefixes, ie, those that may be included into the official vocabulary prefixes. These are odrl and as. >>>> >>>> While these have no effect on current implementations and usage of RDFa and JSON-LD, be advised that, in the coming 1-2 months, three new prefixes may be added to the list: >>> >>> Note that JSON-LD does not use pre-defined prefixes, so there’s no change necessary here. However, recall that CSVW does use the same prefixes as RDFa, so we’ll want to update the CSVW context accordingly. >>> >>> Gregg >>> >>>> oa: Web Annotation vocabulary >>>> as: Activity (Streams) vocabulary >>>> dqv: Data Quality Vocabulary >>>> >>>> The first two are part of planned Recommendations; the third one is defined through an (already published) W3C Note. These changes may require a minor update on existing RDFa implementations. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Technical Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >>
Received on Saturday, 7 January 2017 16:28:32 UTC