W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Whither the schema.org JSON-LD context?

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 13:14:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhJ=mqa6GQO+uv8BQ6U=190rrkUUt2+QbPCAiPvDUDKDoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
On 6 January 2014 20:56, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

> +Cc: Guha
> On 6 January 2014 18:48, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> > For some time, we've been expecting schema.org to publish a json-ld
> context at http://schema.org/ via content-negotation when the request is
> made with an accept header including application/ld+json. On behalf of the
> Linked JSON Community Group, I'd like to get an update on this.
> >
> > To get around this, many (most) JSON-LD tool suppliers have provided
> their own context based on the schema.org vocabulary definition, but this
> is prone to error, and difference of implementation between the various
> tools. I understand that there could be some concern about excessive
> requests for the context, when it's not necessary, however, it's hard to
> see that this would even approach the number of requests for
> http://schema.org/ itself, from tools that encounter that in HTML.
> >
> > Any timeline on when this might be available?
> I think it's reasonable to expect a static file published this
> quarter. However you're right that we do have concerns about the
> schema.org *website* forming an integral part of numerous unknown
> software systems and applications. It ought to be possible to do
> useful things with schema.org-based json-ld without a dependency on
> the Web site.

That's good news.  I think concerns about traffic are legitimate.  But it
would be good to have a definitive reference for the context.  Nobody is
obliged to produce 5 star linked data, especially if there is a business
case against it, but every step in that direction makes the web that little
bit better.

> W3C's experience with XML parsers that auto-fetch
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd and
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml when parsing XML is relevant here:
> Excerpting from
> http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2008/02/08/w3c_s_excessive_dtd_traffic/
>  "Handling all these requests costs us considerably: servers,
> bandwidth and human time spent analyzing traffic patterns and devising
> methods to limit or block excessive new request patterns."
> If someone has millions of schema.org-based JSON-LD documents that
> they want to parse into RDF or otherwise consume via json-ld tooling,
> are there code snippets and examples for the popular toolkits that
> make it likely the schema.org will see one request (per session, day,
> application invocation etc.) rather than millions?
> If JSON is the new XML and JSON-LD is the emerging best practice for
> interoperable JSON, it isn't unreasonable to expect XML-levels of
> usage. So let's try to learn from the W3C XML DTD experience.
> Dan
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 12:14:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:20 UTC