- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 10:58:56 -0400
- To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- CC: 'Pat Hayes' <phayes@ihmc.us>, 'www-archive' <www-archive@w3.org>, 'Manu Sporny' <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "'Hawke, Sandro'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'Wood, David'" <david@3roundstones.com>, 'David Longley' <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>, 'Gregg Kellogg' <gregg@greggkellogg.com>
In JSON-LD, terms are converted to URIs by use of a context. However, a context may be in a separate document that may not be accessible to a client that is attempting to interpret that JSON-LD as RDF. Hence, the client may be unable to determine the full URIs corresponding to the JSON-LD terms, in order to generate the correct RDF model. Since this is likely to be a very common problem, I think the JSON-LD spec should provide some constructive guidance about how a client should deal with this situation. What might be some reasonable guidance? Something along the following lines? [[ If the context for a term cannot be obtained -- perhaps because the context document is unavailable -- then it may not be possible to reliably map that term to the IRI that the JSON-LD author intended. In such cases, the client interpreting the JSON-LD document MAY perform a "best guess" mapping, with the understanding that the guess may be incorrect. Suggested "best guess" techniques: 1. If a context was previously available for an version of the JSON-LD document that is being processed, use that as the context. 2. Otherwise, expand the JSON-LD terms as though they are relative URIs, relative to the document's base URI. ]] Or, as a variation of #2 above perhaps a designated universal base URI such as http://example/JSON-LD/ or http://schema.org/ . What do others think? Thanks, David
Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 14:59:26 UTC