W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2018

Re: JSON Ontology Re: Toward easier RDF: a proposal

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:02:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKsLFemb5Op3HgARthAc+zG4y0JF9edRs+wz6qR3wE-iA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 19:12, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
wrote:

> Uhm, isn't that what JSON-LD @context does?
>

The JSON-LD is a short hand

It would map foo to be something longer (a URI)

This is more a question of : what would the longer form be, if you were,
say, writing an automated tool to create a context.


> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 6:22 PM Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > As I am sure you know, there is a wide proliferation of JSON on the web
> >
> > Yet (in 2019!) we do not have a standard way for developers, and
> automated tools, to map a JSON predicate into a URI
> >
> > I've suggested in the past :
> >
> > foo ->  urn:string:foo
> >
> > But that has yet to gain mind share. Tim has suggested we have an HTTP
> JSON ontology.  So, possibly that is the way to go.  Reason being that a
> random URI is hard to gain consensus on.  But if someone goes to the effort
> of creating a JSON HTTP URI you are unlikely to get two of them.
> >
> > Two issues
> >
> > 1. Wouldnt there be a huge number of terms in a JSON ontology -- should
> we maybe dynamically create entries?
> >
> > 2. Where would it be stored?  w3.org ?  w3id?  somewhere else.
> >
> > If we can reach a consensus on this, I would seem that would be a way to
> bootstrap a lot of the existing web?
>
Received on Friday, 30 November 2018 18:03:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:57 UTC