Re: JSON-LD Framing requires "@type"?

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