Ahha! Thanks Dave! I think we were trying to avoid changing the data type mapping (@value / @type, but id for subject and type --> rdf:type). We'll stop doing that :) Rob On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > On 02/16/2016 07:51 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > > > Dear JSON-LD folks, > > > > (CC affected Annotation and SocialWeb WGs) > > > > At TPAC last year, there was discussion that led to the recommendation > > of aliasing @id and @type to "id" and "type", if that is possible given > > existing json keys and structure. For the Social Web WG and Annotation > > WG, we have followed this recommendation for our current JSON-LD based > > specs. > > > > An issue generated for the Annotation group [1] was to provide JSON-LD > > frames to make it easier for developers to produce the required layout. > > In working on that, it seems that the framing algorithm _requires_ > > @type, and does not process the context looking for aliases. Is that > > true and intentional? > > > > An example in the playground: http://tinyurl.com/hqsphco > > And the same result is obtained using the Python implementation. > > > > To make both implementations work, I need to use @type in both the input > > graph and the frame document, despite the alias being present in the > > referenced (and processed) context doc. > > > > Bug? Seems like a show-stopper for providing frames? > > I don't see an alias "type" for the keyword "@type" in the context given > in the example. Instead "type" is mapped to "rdf:type". > > Here's a more minimal example showing framing working with "type" as an > alias for "@type": > > http://json-ld.org/playground/#/gist/a4080a8fa2ce7ddf624f > > > -- > Dave Longley > CTO > Digital Bazaar, Inc. > -- Rob Sanderson Information Standards Advocate Digital Library Systems and Services Stanford, CA 94305
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2016 04:24:48 UTC