Add warnings related to @vocab usage
#1524
Conversation
msporny
added
normative
msporny
requested review from
BigBlueHat,
davidlehn,
dlongley,
jandrieu,
longpd,
iherman,
dmitrizagidulin,
TallTed,
David-Chadwick,
decentralgabe,
brentzundel and
aniltj
index.html
Outdated
| While this specification warns against the usage of `@vocab`, there are | ||
| legitimate usages of the feature, such as to ease experimentation, development, | ||
| and localized deployment. If an application developer desires to use `@vocab` in | ||
| production, which is strongly advised against, they are urged to understand that |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| production, which is strongly advised against, they are urged to understand that | |
| production, which is advised against, they are urged to understand that |
perhaps something like
| production, which is strongly advised against, they are urged to understand that | |
| production, which is advised against to reduce term collisions and leverage the benefits of semantic interoperability, they are urged to understand that |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When I pulled in @TallTed's change suggestions, it invalidated this one, can you please re-raise it on the updated text so you get credit for the change?
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com> Co-authored-by: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
| the semantics of the terms that are used by their application. Applications MAY | ||
| use JSON-LD <a data-cite="JSON-LD11-API#compaction-algorithms">compaction | ||
| algorithms</a> to transform a document that uses an unknown JSON-LD context | ||
| to one that does not, so the new document's terms will match expectations. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some additional detail might be needed, with the addition of that sentence. I think this, because I don't know (and I haven't been able to figure it out, after more than a few minutes reading the linked page and others. I had thought I had a good grasp of JSON-LD mechanics, but this makes me wonder!) how the suggested transformation would work. Maybe add some more-descriptive, psuedo-algorithmic language here, with fewer low-level details than the linked page?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm thinking that this statement is going to require it's own section. Both in the Data Integrity spec, and possibly in the VCDM spec. People seem to be requesting it over here (see item 3): w3c/vc-data-integrity#272 (comment)
If we get consensus to do item 3 (above), then I expect we'll dedicate a section to that sentence. So, we can take it out for now, or leave it in and expand upon it later. I'm fine either way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Either will work for me, for now, if a tracking issue is opened before/upon merge of this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is now being tracked in #1529
Co-authored-by: Gabe <7622243+decentralgabe@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Editorial, multiple reviews, changes requested and made, @TallTed's concern tracked in a new issue, no objections, merging. |
This PR is a partial attempt to address issue #1514 by warning about the usage of
@vocab, including guidance on when it might be acceptable to use it.Preview | Diff