On 24/04/2022 12:05, Dan Brickley wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 at 11:12, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Dan,
Could you point to this dependency in the specs because I can't find
mention of JSONschema.
"schema" mentions are schema.org (for examples), XMLSchema (for
datatypes) and RDF schema for termninology.
I (a different Dan) dug around out of curiosity. I could not find a formal
dependency in the W3C standard but there does seem to have been some
communication and collaboration between JSON Schema and JSON-LD teams, eg
to characterise (subsets of) the former using the latter.
Dan
Hi danbri,
Thanks for the research. That would place the interaction at the
writing/framing point of an output pipeline. Sounds interesting;
presentation of JSON-LD driven by domain-specific forms is more of a
"business logic layer" issue.
The Jena default output, as would be experienced from Fuseki, is
currently compacted, using prefixes as @context from the RDF data, and
has @version added. It is an JSON object, not an array, and carries the
information in the RDF data (triples and prefixes/@vocab). i.e. it
round-trips.
In the trade-off between better presentation, and switching over at the
next version, I think delays in switching 1.1 is delayed will slowly
becoming more painful and complicated for users to navigate mixed forms.
A hybrid JSON 1.1 input with JSON 1.0 output hasn't worked out.
Andy
Andy
On 23/04/2022 20:21, Dan Davis wrote:
It has always bothered me that JSONSchema is not an official standard in
the way that XML and RDF/XML are. I know that JSON-LD 1 and 2 are more
standardized under W3C, but they depend so much on JSONSchema. Last I
checked, JSON Schema DRAFT 4 was the closest to a schema. Is the story
any
better now?
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:40 PM Paul Tyson <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Apr 23, 2022, at 12:16, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote:
What should the default settings be JSON-LD 1.0 or 1.1?
1.1 would better meet my use cases.
Thanks,
—Paul
