- 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>
> 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 :-) Cheers, Markus -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Saturday, 7 January 2017 19:40:31 UTC