Indexing without a predicate #19
Comments
|
I wonder if this could leverage the {
"@context": {
"@vocab": "http://example/",
"id": "@id",
"type": "@type",
"eg": "http://example/",
"classification": {"@type": "@id", "@nest": "@id"},
"included": {"@container": "@id"}
},
"id": "1",
"type": "eg:Thing-with-Items",
"eg:items": [
{
"id":"2",
"classification": "enum:c6",
"service": "enum:s2",
},
{ "id": "3...26 go here", "type": "eg:X"},
{
"id": "27",
"classification": "enum:c6"
}
],
"included": {
"enum:c6": {"type": "eg:Type", "label": "Classification 6"},
"enum:p1": {"type": "eg:Person", "label": "Person 1"},
"enum:s2": {"type": "eg:Service", "label": "Login Service"}
}
}Here, the [{
"@id": "1",
"@type": ["http://example/Thing-with-Items"],
"http://example/items": [{
"@id": "2",
"@type": ["http://example/Type", "http://example/Service"],
"http://example/label": [
{"@value": "Classification 6"},
{"@value": "Login Service"}
]
}, {
"@id": "2",
...
}, {
"@id": "27",
"@type": ["http://example/Type"],
"http://example/label": [{"@value": "Classification 6"}]
},
"http://example/included": [{
"@type": "http://example/Type", "http://example/label": ["@value": "Classification 6"]
}, {
"@type": "http://example/Person", "http://example/label": ["@value": "Person 1"]
}, {
"@type": "http://example/Service", "http://example/label": ["@value": "Login Service"]
}]
}]Of course, here may be issues with this, but it leverages the nesting concept and keyword and prevents needing to add a new keyword. |
|
I can say that this is a feature that would make my life significantly better--we've been using |
|
Per json-ld-api#33, I prefer a new keyword rather than overloading permutations of existing keywords which has proven confusing in the past. That said, |
|
I think I understand the intention (references to other syntaxes help a lot), but I do not understand the exact mechanism. The playground example doesn't help, all three snippets on the screen look identical to me (the (If my understanding is remotely correct, it is also based on the new |
|
Discussion on WG call of 2018-09-14 led to the conclusion that this is likely a framing issue, not a syntax issue. Framing based solutions to be explored. (For the sake of issue management, we'll leave the issue here) |
|
In light of the framing discussion, how about something like a new value for the The syntax document would need to define "@included" so that it could be aliased to something else, otherwise expansion would try to apply the default vocab to it as a regular term. Then the example in the issue would be generated by something like: Data: Frame: |
|
On the WG call of 2018-12-14, we discussed the feature in the abstract and two separate implementation patterns. The feature is, in JSON-LD terms, to have a way to not embed nodes in the compacted JSON tree where they're encountered, but instead have the nodes serialized in a separate part of the tree and referenced from where they're encountered. In essence, it is a desire to exclude some nodes from being embedded in the tree and instead treat them like "striped" RDF/XML, or as if they were disconnected nodes but without requiring
My original issue assumed option 2, but the use case could be solved with option 1 as well. I think option 1 would require more machinery than option 2, as the references would need to be understood in the context. |
|
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
View the transcript5.5. Indexing without a predicateBenjamin Young: #19 Rob Sanderson: I opened issue 19 initially in the CG … based on an observation by 2 communities Rob Sanderson: last time we discussed this we thought it might be a good fit for framing … for creating it; and the context definition for understanding what the particular … is … you could have an “included block” that contains hundreds of items, you only have to reference but don’t have to add all everytime you use them Gregg Kellogg: looks very much like “itemref” of microdata … unwinding this in compaction might be challenging to say at least Benjamin Young: the current container options don’t work because they force you to have a name or these? Rob Sanderson: no, the issue we like to solve -> if you don’t have the entire graph in memory, you don’t necessarily find the reference for everything … i.e. optimizing search Gregg Kellogg: just noting that there’s a CG started on updating N3 … one of the things they tackle first is adding formula/pattern … in RDFa we did something similar by adding some reasoning Ivan Herman: I’m looking at the example and I’m not sure I understand what the graph is you want to generate out of that? Rob Sanderson: a very connected one … that allows to avoid having to define a specific node every time it is encountered Ivan Herman: relative URIs within JSON-LD? … couldn’t we use an internal URL, like one would use in turtle Pierre-Antoine Champin: I’m a bit confused by Ivan’s last example Ivan Herman: the original problem is “we don’t want to repeat things” … one way to do this in turtle is to use internal URIs Pierre-Antoine Champin: could I extend this by having only the included key in the top-level object and a set of ids in the corresponding object? … basically what we discussed during TPAC Rob Sanderson: we can already do that, so you can have the pattern RDF XML kinda uses … but it’s a very good point … some things we want to have nested, some enumerated … potentially a framing algo could say “put these refs separate, but those others nested” Rob Sanderson: in JSON schema there’s a definitions block one can reference Benjamin Young: https://json-schema.org/latest/relative-json-pointer.html Rob Sanderson: $ref something something magic … I was thinking more about arbitrary ids, or something along those lines Benjamin Young: $ref is actually here https://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-core.html#rfc.section.8.3.2.p.1 Gregg Kellogg: it kinda looks like nesting? Gregg Kellogg: [gives example] Rob Sanderson: I don’t think it’s a graph container, as there’s only one graph. It could be either an identifier container or a nesting container, without a mapped predicate Pierre-Antoine Champin: [thinks about possible hacks to do that] Ivan Herman: not sure which way we want to go Benjamin Young: no more calls for the rest of the year |
…ied URL for specifying context or frame. For #19.
…ied URL for specifying context or frame. For #19.
|
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
View the transcript3. “itemref”, issue 19Rob Sanderson: issue occurs when resource occurs multiple times in the graph. What would be nice that if you knew that terms got used repeatedly… … would be nice if you had references from the inclusion to included. JSON API calls it “included” … JSON Schema has $ref. David Newbury: https://jsonapi.org/format/1.1/#document-top-level David Newbury: an example of it in the JSON-API spec is here: https://jsonapi.org/format/1.1/#document-compound-documents Rob Sanderson: useful in graph context so you can use references rather than values … is this a frame issue or syntax? We decided both - could go into framing to know that “included” is not a predicate, it is the inclusion … references block rather than <base#>included. Gregg Kellogg: did you consider the RDFa approach, where there is a way to output triples where after parsing there is a reasoning step? Ivan Herman: I thought that was more directly done… Gregg Kellogg: … that was microdata. RDFa is more directly — reasoner takes triples and outputs w/ different subject. Jeff Mixter: is there a way to solve this with @graph? … I have a first block of JSON which is object outside of a graph and add subgraphs with aliased keyword Ivan Herman: this is mixing levels — syntax is similar but this is not a graph Gregg Kellogg: inverse properties? Included have reverse relationships to items that are included … is classificaton_of is at term that is an @reverse – achieves separation of concerns but also includes expanding, compacting and framing for round trip Rob Sanderson: would still need an @nest property. Ivan Herman: there are two ways to look at this: … 1) enum:c6 is an internal reference that we could handle with fragment id in graph, but I have an extra triple in the graph … … you get extra links … 2) conceptually expect value of enum:c6 to be physically replicated and put back into the node … itemref did the replication option … JSON Schema creates a fragment identifier, but is this what you are looking for? David Newbury: our use case is the latter case … because in a JSON only environment, knowing where to go is difficult. Ivan Herman: Option 2) requires duplication and massaging in graph… Rob Sanderson: gregg’s proposal w/ included : {"@container": "@id"} (sort of) works Ivan Herman: included should be a nest David Newbury: how do I get option 2) (included under classification)? Gregg Kellogg: we’d still need an inverse thing. If I have an id map but want to say it is sort of transparent… Ivan Herman: if a term is defined to be @nest, does @id still work or do you ignore that once and for all? Gregg Kellogg: @nest allows me to use an intermediate property to hold things which are pushed up. We want subtree to be somewhere else Ivan Herman: if included is @nest, is @container: @id still valid? Gregg Kellogg: round tripping is an issue as well. Benjamin Young: posted playground example above that uses “embedded”. Seems to do what you want. Note that “included” is an array in … json API not an object. Also introducing a non-JSON reference mechanism Ivan Herman: what you do is define a graph, not the content of the graph Rob Sanderson: there is a blank node _:b0 which has a name and a type Gregg Kellogg: use a preprocessing tool or do it the way RDFa does it? David Newbury: I could do this but it wouldn’t be valid JSON-LD … Gregg Kellogg: It would be, but it wouldn’t be the graph you are looking for Harold Solbrig: (discussion about examples on FTF document… w/ @nest and rather than containing , references object…) David Newbury: in practice we use @id in our main document and use a placeholder in data, but requires an addition piece of semantic ata Pierre-Antoine Champin: 2 questions. 1) Do we agree that the enum term should be defined as well? (a: yes) … 2) is "@type": "@nest" the way it would be written? (a: no) Rob Sanderson: nest: https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#ex-65-defining-property-nesting Gregg Kellogg: could handle it with n3 reasoning? … it seems like we are trying to do things at a totally different level. Adam Soroka: one other wrinkle … this would play oddly with a streaming processor. Gregg Kellogg: this is the reason we did rdfa the way we did Ivan Herman: in rdfa we define terms and additional semantic rules, which is what we do here. Gregg Kellogg: it has already been done, we could just reference it. Gregg Kellogg: https://www.w3.org/TR/html-rdfa/#property-copying Ivan Herman: done through RDF, but way too complicated… Pierre-Antoine Champin: reminds me of the very first version of RDF rdf:aboutEach Rob Sanderson: http://tinyurl.com/ydgfcgl4 Harold Solbrig: (azaroth using playground example between jane and john…) Ivan Herman: copying vs. referencing. We can say that copying stuff is outside json-ld. … reference, however, might be doable. What do we need to make the example on the screen (enum:c6, … in issue #19) work … . included is there because of bookkeeping. The approach feels natural … if included is nested, you take it out of the equation altogether… Rob Sanderson: needs to be a new syntax ("@id": "@nest"?) Simon Steyskal: works as expected on playground but @id: @nest doesn’t work Pierre-Antoine Champin: https://json-ld.org/playground-dev/#startTab=tab-nquads&json-ld=%7B%22%40context%22%3A%5B%22http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F%22%2C%7B%22labels%22%3A%7B%22%40id%22%3A%22%40nest%22%7D%7D%5D%2C%22%40type%22%3A%22Person%22%2C%22labels%22%3A%5B%7B%22familyName%22%3A%22Doe%22%7D%2C%7B%22givenName%22%3A%22Jane%22%7D%5D%7D Gregg Kellogg: is there a way through @nest to subsume @graph while defining a bush Gregg Kellogg: today, nesting requires the object Gregg Kellogg: There’s obviously work to be done… Rob Sanderson: how much? Gregg Kellogg: (waffles and ponders…) involves extending id of nesting… there a lot of angles to this, man. David Newbury: to clarify, we’re not addressing framing right now, correct? Ivan Herman: workergnome – is this approach still ok? Does it accomplish what you want? Proposed resolution: Continue to explore @nest with additional features, such as @container:@id, as a solution to issue #19 (Rob Sanderson) Ivan Herman: +1 Simon Steyskal: +1 Rob Sanderson: +1 Jeff Mixter: +1 Harold Solbrig: +1 Gregg Kellogg: +1 David I. Lehn: +1 Adam Soroka: +1 Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1 David Newbury: +1 Resolution #3: Continue to explore @nest with additional features, such as @container:@id, as a solution to issue #19 {: #resolution3 .resolution} Benjamin Young: +1 Action #1: gkellogg and pchampin to explore effect of @nest+@container:@id on compaction and expansion |
|
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
View the transcriptIndexing without a predicateRob Sanderson: Link: #19 Rob Sanderson: we discussed at the F2F … there was an action of gkellogg and pchampin to look into it Gregg Kellogg: I didn’t have time to look into it yet Pierre-Antoine Champin: me neither Rob Sanderson: when an item appears randomly in multiple places in the document, … it would be nice to put this item in a kind of “bucket” where its full description is stored, … rather than to have to browse the full document to find the random place where the full description is included Ivan Herman: this is essentially the ‘itemref’ feature of microdata … copying that mechanism in JSON-LD seems complicated, but maybe not impossible Dave Longley: sounds like a framing issue, similar to "@anywhere" Rob Sanderson: this is not only related to framing, you need something in the context as well Gregg Kellogg: this is indeed very much like ‘itemref’ … my concern is that it will be complicated if we want to ensure round-trip (compaction/expansion) … like we do for other features … that could be done using default and framing, but seems like a very complex solution Dave Longley: we do have special keywords in the framing compaction algorithm that are treated differently to avoid dropping undefined terms, etc. David Newbury: is there a way to handle this as a post-processing step? Gregg Kellogg: the RDFa reference mechanism involves looking in the graph, adding triples and remove triples that were part of the pattern Ivan Herman: if we do that (i.e., reproduce the RDFa ref mechanism) people will run away screaming … what we are trying to do is some sort of internal references, essentially relative URIs … it would still require to define a bush and not a tree, which forces us to use @graph, … but it might work Dave Longley: if we consider working in memory, consider @link which is implemented in the Javascript processor … to ensure that an object is stored only in one place Gregg Kellogg: the problem is that you would typically create cycles internally … I’m not sure relative URIs can be used without introducing a level of indirection Action #3: propose a concrete solution, considering link and nest (Rob Sanderson) Action #4: propose a concrete solution, considering link and nest (David Newbury) Gregg Kellogg: if we are moving towards better support for streaming profiles … we can’t rely on in-memory storage only … You would need a lot of bookkeeping to handle this. |
|
Requirement: Functionality that allows resource nodes to be serialized at a particular location in the JSON tree, rather than where they are encountered. There isn't necessarily a direct relationship between the top resource node in the tree and the resource node to be serialized (similar to Rationale: There are many use cases (e.g. IIIF, Linked Art, JSON-API,...) where nodes are referred to sporadically throughout the graph, but without any particular obvious first location. Embedding them always would be overkill in many situations, and the cost to find the first occurrence is arbitrarily high based on the size of the tree. Instead, having them at a knowable location makes this a single look up, rather than a tree traversal. Proposed Solution: Introduce a new keyword Like And now the solution splits into two options for discussion: Option A - framing: In framing, Option B - compaction: In a context, a property may be defined as |
|
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
View the transcriptIndexing without a predicateBenjamin Young: link: #19 Gregg Kellogg: Related w3c/json-ld-wg#52 Benjamin Young: this is issue is also known as @included … proposed by azaroth … there is a related proposal by gkellogg Gregg Kellogg: there are several ways of doing something like id-ref … one of them would be to combine @nest and @container:@id … Rob’s proposal would better be handled in expansion (this is where syntactic sugar is removed). … Properties declared as e.g. @container:@include would look into a special @include container. … Problem with compaction, which can not easily reverse this kind of extension. … More appropriate in Framing. … Seems quite complex and convoluted, with a lot of corner cases. |
|
A hopefully simpler proposal and example: Introduce a new keyword
For example, this data: Expands in 1.0 and 1.1 to this form: The following would also expand to the same form: When compacting, the |
|
I have a straw man implementation of the expansion part of this, which raises some cases to consider:
Basic implementation
|
|
Two other observations:
We may want to skip compacting altogether. We previously thought about doing it with framing, although many of the same challenges remain. |
|
Some expansion examples: Includes referenced identifier=> [{
"http://example.org/data": [{
"@type": ["http://example.org/Data"],
"http://example.org/label": [{"@value": "label"}]
}]
}]Includes with array value{
"@context": {
"@vocab": "http://example.org/",
"data": {"@type": "@included"}
},
"data": "http://example.org/data",
"@included": {
"http://example.org/data": [{
"@type": "Data",
"label": "label"
}, {
"@type": "Data2",
"label": "label2"
}]
}
}=> [{
"http://example.org/data": [{
"@type": ["http://example.org/Data"],
"http://example.org/label": [{"@value": "label"}]
}, {
"@type": ["http://example.org/Data2"],
"http://example.org/label": [{"@value": "label2"}]
}]
}]Included in different top-level objects of an array[{
"@context": {
"@vocab": "http://example.org/",
"data": {"@type": "@included"}
},
"data": "http://example.org/data",
"@included": {
"http://example.org/data": {
"@type": "Data",
"label": "label"
}
}
}, {
"@context": {
"@vocab": "http://example.org/",
"data": {"@type": "@included"}
},
"data": "http://example.org/data",
"@included": {
"http://example.org/data": {
"@type": "Data2",
"label": "label2"
}
}
}]=> [{
"http://example.org/data": [{
"@type": ["http://example.org/Data"],
"http://example.org/label": [{"@value": "label"}]
}]
}, {
"http://example.org/data": [{
"@type": ["http://example.org/Data2"],
"http://example.org/label": [{"@value": "label2"}]
}]
}]Multiple values for an
|
I think it should be an error. I think multiple maps should be okay, but only one should be present. With multiple and picking the first, it would be determined by the key order ... which isn't deterministic without further processing (which we already specify, but isn't lovely). Alternatively, if the keys are unique across the maps, they could be merged ... but that seems like a challenge for creation, even if we don't specify it in 1.1. So ... my thought would be error.
e.g. that there's a reference but no included block with that value as a key? If the reference value MUST expand to a IRI, then there's still a valid triple, just no data with the URI as the subject. So I would keep the triple where the IRI is the object. And this is why I think the keys in the block and the reference should be required to expand to IRIs.
I think that should be an error. There's no point having non-top-level inclusion blocks, as you would never find them.
Error, as it doesn't expand to an IRI.
Error.
That is an excellent question. I think they should be vocabulary relative, such that you could do crazy things like having RDFS descriptions in the @included to give the domain / range of properties that are defined in the context.
I think the strongest use case is expansion -- there's data that looks like this in the wild, and the structure helps the target audience of JSON developers do their thing. If it we don't specify how to generate that form in compact() in 1.1 ... that's not the end of the world. |
|
Thanks for the work on this Greg!! |
IIUC, in @azaroth42's formulation, a bit of JSON can produce triples with the URI either as subject or object, which seems like a good opportunity for surprise. I think omission (or erroring out) is a bit more intuitive. But I'm not confident that I understand this very well, without "in the wild" examples. |
|
I think the case from the examples is this one: e.g. Certainly not a hill I'm going to die on, but if it doesn't expand, then I think the |
That's the current interpretation as I laid out in Missing I'll create a PR for the API with a processing description and tests based on the examples I outlined above, plus some others. Also, to note, |
gkellogg
moved this from Discuss-Call
to Editorial work complete
in JSON-LD Management DEPRECATED
|
Based on discussion today, it sounds like the group would like to do something different, where we would rely on node references to do the job, and find a way to be able to do something like Looking more at included from json.api, maybe we want to do something like that, where the value of {
"@context": {
"@version": 1.1,
"@vocab": "http://example.org/",
"@base": "http://example.org/base/",
"id": "@id",
"type": "@type",
"enum": "http://example.org/enum#",
"classification": {"@type": "@id"},
"service": {"@type": "@ id"},
"included": "@included"
},
"id": "http://example.org/base/1",
"type": "Thing-with-Items",
"items": [{
"id":"http://example.org/base/2",
"classification": "enum:c6",
"service": "enum:s2"
},
3...26 go here
{
"id": "http://example.org/base/27",
"classification": "enum:c6"
}],
"included": [{
"@id": "enum:c6", "type": "Type", "label": "Classification 6"
}, {
"@id": "enum:s2", "type": "Service", "label": "Login Service"
}]
}This would expand to something like the following: [{
"@id": "http://example.org/base/1",
"@type": ["http://example.org/Thing-with-Items"],
"http://example.org/items": [{
"@id": "http://example.org/base/2",
"http://example.org/classification": [{
"@id": "http://example.org/enum#c6"
}],
"http://example.org/service": [{
"@id": "http://example.org/enum#s2",
}]
}, {
"@id": "http://example.org/base/27",
"http://example.org/classification": [{
"@id": "http://example.org/enum#c6"
}]
}],
"@included": [{
"@id": "http://example.org/enum#c6",
"@type": ["http://example.org/Type"],
"http://example.org/label": [{"@value": "Classification 6"}]
}, {
"@id": "http://example.org/enum#s2",
"@type": ["http://example.org/Service"],
"http://example.org/label": [{"@value": "Login Service"}]
}]
}]If you flatten this, the If we chose too, we could even allow a term definition aliasing {
"@context": {
"@version": 1.1,
"@vocab": "http://example.org/",
"@base": "http://example.org/base/",
"id": "@id",
"type": "@type",
"enum": "http://example.org/enum#",
"classification": {"@type": "@ id"},
"service": {"@type": "@ id"},
"included": {"@id": "@included", "@container": "@id"}
},
"id": "http://example.org/base/1",
"type": "Thing-with-Items",
"items": [{
"id":"http://example.org/base/2",
"classification": "enum:c6",
"service": "enum:s2"
},
3...26 go here
{
"id": "http://example.org/base/27",
"classification": "enum:c6"
}],
"included": {
"enum:c6": {"type": "Type", "label": "Classification 6"},
"enum:s2": {"type": "Service", "label": "Login Service"}
}
}This is effectively equivalent to the json.api use of included, while adhering more closely to JSON-LD syntax and processing rules. |
gkellogg
moved this from Editorial work complete
to Editorial Work
in JSON-LD Management DEPRECATED
gkellogg
moved this from Editorial Work
to Editorial work complete
in JSON-LD Management DEPRECATED
|
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
View the transcript4.1. Indexing with@includedIvan Herman: -> #208 issue PR Ivan Herman: -> #19 issue itself Benjamin Young: We made good progress on this last week. Gregg Kellogg: It is @included now.16:13:56 <bigbluehat> https://jsonapi.org/… @included comes from the JSON.API spec, and we are adopting this.… Right now it’s just a container for collecting node objects that don’t have a direct rel with the node in which they are contained. … There’s been some exchange on the issue highlighting a bush-like use for included. … In JSON-LD 1.0 the top-level graph is used to collect nodes is a corner case. Everywhere else where graphs are used are seen as named graph. … Included doesn’t carry that baggage. … So @included can be used in favor of @graph in these places.… In 1.0, you can’t have a graph name being a property of another node. With @included you can.… We can’t use @graph to define a default graph.… Except when it is the only property in a top-level object. Benjamin Young: How does the actual inclusion take place? Gregg Kellogg: The shape is similar to JSON.API. The value is seen as an array of node objects. If you have a node that is a value of a prop…. … Needed in jsonapi for node references that are not included in the main document as references, but should be included aside. … Included blocks can be nested, and will be flattened out when done. … You won’t compact back to included blocks after flattening. … You can use included in a frame and have it match on diff subjects. … The name @included is out of sync with other keywords.… Dave suggested @include… Just like jsonapi Ivan Herman: It’s becoming bikeshedding … I would go further than what you did. Ex 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 (bushes) should be removed. … We should convince people to not use those forms anymore. Gregg Kellogg: https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/208.html#example-111-using-graph-to-explicitly-express-the-default-graph Gregg Kellogg: By removing these we won’t lose anything. We would have to remove everything after the note. Gregg Kellogg: https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/208.html#example-103-simple-data-with-several-top-level-nodes Gregg Kellogg: Also, we may want to reverse example 103 and 104. To clarify writing bushes. Ivan Herman: Referring to @graph is misleading, as it has not been explained yet there.Gregg Kellogg: We may want to change an example in the @graph section then.… We can also just leave that out and use it in the best practices document. Ivan Herman: Yes Benjamin Young: Flattened representation will still contain @graph, so readers will have to know what it does.… This plumbing shift is significant. … This is going to cause issues for the json people that are operating on the flattened form. Gregg Kellogg: If you flatten with a context, it would introduce a graph to contain it. This would change the shape dramatically. … Same with framing. In 1.1 we don’t use an @graph at the top level if not needed.… We could change the algo to use included instead. … But we may not want to do that. … So do we want to replace the main usage of @graph to @included?… Included allows embedded nodes to go to one place. Like in jsonapi, they don’t want to include referenced things inline, but only a reference to an included block. Benjamin Young: Useful for reducing payload size. And only including referenced things once. … These are just IRI references? Gregg Kellogg: There is no magic going on. Ivan Herman: In JSON-LD it used to be hard to do these indexed references. … The bush features can now be expressed in two different ways. … These things happen. … It’s a matter of taste which one you prefer. … I personally always hated graph for representing bushes. … I like this new included representation for bushes. … I don’t want to hide the fact that bushes can be described with included instead of the graph ‘hack’. Gregg Kellogg: We can say that included can also be used without other props in node object for describing node objects without semantic relationship. Ivan Herman: I’m fine with that. Benjamin Young: https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/208.html#included-blocks-to-be-flattened Benjamin Young: If @included were @graph, this would make a named graph?Gregg Kellogg: I think this would make one or two named graphs. Benjamin Young: With included it won’t make named graphs. Gregg Kellogg: Yes, just objects. Benjamin Young: I see the value, but not keen on the new keyword. … I think we need to explain these next to each other, with their nuances. … The initial reason for this feature was not meant to displace graph. … It was meant to bring in other referenced objects in the document. Gregg Kellogg: What jsonld always had was the ability to reference node … by defining @id or @vocab you can define that thing.… our mission is to use json in the wild where this is a pattern of usage Benjamin Young: You said exactly what I was typing. … it would be good to use an example from jsonapi Gregg Kellogg: jsonapi examples are quite long, with a lot of nesting … we have a test case from jsonapi … may be too long for here. But may be good for best practices document. … It would overly complicated the spec to include here. Benjamin Young: This solves the jsonapi case by aliasing included to @included.Gregg Kellogg: Yes, you can have multiple properties that have multiple aliases. … included can be a nested object Ivan Herman: Can we talk about things that go to the primer? Gregg Kellogg: What to do with example? Ivan Herman: Switch the order of problem of Rob. In the primer we will have to spend more words on the fact that there are different things that can be used to do the same thing. … We must have a primer. … The current doc is already huge. Benjamin Young: We need distinction in the main spec explaining diff between included and graph Ivan Herman: To be honest, at this level there is no real diff between the examples. … this is a side-effect with included. … we should not fiddle around with that Benjamin Young: The graph foundation exists in flattened output, and this won’t go away. … this needs clarification Gregg Kellogg: The use of included on its own is a by-product of the feature. … it does not need its own description in the spec … There are use cases where that can be useful … That better lies in a non-normative text. Benjamin Young: The bush usage would go to the primer … focus of the text would go back to inter-document referencing. Ivan Herman: We are falling back to other extreme that I don’t agree with … we are hiding a feature of included … In the inclusion part we should mention the alternative representation of bushes. … because current graph-based bushes are a hack … It has been around for a while, but we still should mention it. Benjamin Young: This is an accidental feature since recently. … it is essential to flattened output. I don’t see it as a hack. … For non-turtle/trig users. Ivan Herman: For semweb folks you don’t care it is a hack. … we get into taste issues … I don’t want to hide it. Proposed resolution: focus @included text and example on original inclusion use case; mention value of it as an @graph replacement for bushes–and reference primer for further reading (Benjamin Young)Ivan Herman: +0.5 Gregg Kellogg: +1 Benjamin Young: +1 Tim Cole: +1 Ruben Taelman: +1 Ivan Herman: If we have a primer, a reference can be put into it in CR Resolution #2: focus @included text and example on original inclusion use case; mention value of it as an @graph replacement for bushes–and reference primer for further readingIvan Herman: include or included? Benjamin Young: People may expect a URI to be included. But this is wrong. Ruben Taelman: what was the keyword in JSON API? Gregg Kellogg: included Ruben Taelman: in that case, it might be helpful to be consistent with that Tim Cole: +1 for @includedProposed resolution: close issue #19 with merger of @included related PRs (Benjamin Young)Tim Cole: +1 Ivan Herman: +1 Ruben Taelman: +1 Benjamin Young: +1 Gregg Kellogg: +1 Resolution #3: close issue #19 with merger of @included related PRs4 |
For consideration by the JSON-LD 1.1 WG...
Assuming a nested set of resources where leaf nodes are frequently repeated, it is difficult to find the definition of the node after compaction. Imagine a classification that is used on the second item in a list, and again on the 26th. It would be nice to have a place to look up the label for the classification, instead of repeating it on both 2 and 26. Similarly, information about repeated people, services, or anything else could benefit from this pattern.
As prior art, and use case for inclusion, JSON API has the notion of "included" -- a slot where you can put resources that are included in others, such that developers can always know where to find them. In my work, this has come up with repeated services in IIIF, and classifications, people and places when describing the cultural heritage objects they relate to.
The identifier map pattern is already in this space, but insufficient as it requires a predicate to map to, and the relationship is to a resource somewhere nested in the data structure, not the top level resource. There would also need to be framing support as an extension to
@embed:@neversuch that the inclusions were not embedded in the object data, but with a pointer to where they should go.Example data:
Playground example with identifier map: http://tinyurl.com/yd5z87xg
The inclusion term could either be a new keyword like
@id(@includedor@inclusions) that was then re-aliased in the context (to, e.g.included), or it could be a new keyword value for@container(included: {@container: @included}). I think the former is the (slightly) better design, as it makes it more obviously a field rather than a data structure. It would only be usable in a resource that is not nested within other resources (e.g. the top level JSON object ... which might be in an array or @graph). Framing could then use the same keyword:@embed: @included.Original issue: Indexing without a predicate #650
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: