Re: Question about JSON-LD: @type in expanded term definitions in @context

In case anyone else comes across this question in the archives, there are 
responses and discussion on the public-json-ld-wg list, starting at 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Jun/0006.html

#g
--

On 06/06/2019 10:14, Graham Klyne wrote:
> (First, my apologies: this is probably the wrong list for this question, but I
> couldn't see a more relevant list (e.g. a public comment list) at
> https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/)
>
> I'm working from the 1.0 version of the JSON-LD spec:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/
>
> My question is this: does the inclusion of a "@type" value in an "expanded term
> definition" [1] in a JSON-LD context automatically mean that the defined term is
> a datatype property URI, and hence that the value of the "@type" key must be a
> datatype URI?
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#dfn-expanded-term-definition
>
> I think the answer is "yes" (it's the usage illustrated for Typed Values [2]),
> but I'm struggling to find anything in the spec that definitively states this is
> the case).
>
> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#typed-values
>
> ...
>
> In hindsight, I think the use of the same "@type" keyword for node types and
> value types maybe unfortunate, and what is leading to this uncertainty.  If I'm
> correct in my interpretation, the spec has clearly been misinterpreted by others
> (see below), and may benefit from some clarification in the 1.1 round.
>
> More background on my question is at:
> https://github.com/LinkedPasts/linked-places/issues/11
>
> #g
> --
>
>

Received on Thursday, 13 June 2019 09:14:08 UTC