JSON Common properties require removing JSON-LDisms

[gkellogg]

The algorithm says to simply copy common properties and notes in place, however these have been normalized, and now simple IRI references and values are in expanded form. A simple de-normalize algorithm is necessary to do the following:

• Turn values of the form {"@value": "something"} into just "something", also ignoring @language or @type included in the value object.
• Turn nodes of the form {"@id": "http://example.com/someplace"} into simply "http://example.com/someplace".

[gkellogg]

As with the RDF version, values of @id should also be expanded relative to the document base.

[6a6d74]

Furthermore, do you think that name-value pairs specifying @type should be included in the (plain old) JSON? e.g.

    "notes": {
      "@type": "oa:Annotation",
      [... etc. ...]
      }

(snippet from tree-ops-ext-standard.json)

[iherman]

On 12 Mar 2015, at 06:38 , Jeremy Tandy notifications@github.com wrote:

Furthermore, do you think that name-value pairs specifying @type should be included in the (plain old) JSON? e.g.

"notes": {
  "@type": "oa:Annotation",
  [... etc. ...]
  }

I think it requires more work for the implementation to take it out than to just leave it there (although it is not very meaningful for non-LD JSON...)

Ivan

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

---

Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704

[gkellogg]

I think it's useful information that doesn't make the data less easy to use, so it should stay in. Note that we use @id in the output, giving the impression that the output is JSON-LD, which it's not. But, if someone came up with a co txt, they could reasonably treat it as if it were, which isn't a bad thing.

[6a6d74]

@iherman, @gkellogg ... good points. Just thought I'd ask

[6a6d74]

Obviously this applies to processing notes too. [UPDATE: already says this at top - sorry]

[6a6d74]

Can we confirm that @gkellogg's proposal (at the beginning of this ISSUE) is sufficient? If so I can add this to the doc.

[iherman]

Yes

Ivan

On 18 Mar 2015, at 15:52 , Jeremy Tandy notifications@github.com wrote:

Can e confirm that @gkellogg's proposal (at the beginning of this ISSUE) is sufficient? If so I can add this to the doc.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

---

Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704