W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > January 2017

RE: Some minor changes on the RDFa context document

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 20:39:53 +0100
To: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'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: <02dd01d2691d$d241a050$76c4e0f0$@gmx.net>
> On 7 Jan 2017, at 08:07, Gregg Kellogg <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Ivan Herman <mailto: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.
> http://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
> http://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).

I already created such a context quite a while ago. It's available at http://www.w3.org/2013/json-ld-context/rdfa11... as described on http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 :-)


Markus Lanthaler
Received on Saturday, 7 January 2017 19:40:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:57 UTC