Re: Some minor changes on the RDFa context document

> On Jan 7, 2017, at 8:28 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Ivan Herman
> Tel:+31 641044153
> http://www.ivan-herman.net <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 <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:18 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <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.
>> 
>> Prefix.cc <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 www.w3.org/ns <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).
> 
> 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.

Yes, contexts can be recursive, but note that this involves multiple fetches, which is not optimal. I would recommend that each context be complete in itself.

Gregg

> Ivan
> 
> 
>>> Ivan
>> 
>> [1] https://prefix.cc/about/json-ld <https://prefix.cc/about/json-ld>
>> 
>>>> On 7 Jan 2017, at 00:46, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jan 5, 2017, at 6:51 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto: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 <https://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1>
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----
>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C 
>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C 
>>> Digital Publishing Technical Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>