i'm not 100% sure about this but i am starting to think that the way #jsonld context declarations propagate by default is generally an anti-pattern
-
@trwnh ... JSON processor resolving JSON references and replacing them with their referred to objects, this sits somewhere on an intermediate layer between JSON and JSON-LD.
If the processor "speaks" references, then according to any and all rules about processing them, this is fine.
It isn't doing anything wrong, because the data structure derived from parsing the doc-with-refs-preserved and the one derived from parsing doc-with-refs-resolved is the same.
In that sense, it isn't changing...
@trwnh ...anything at all about the represented data.
If this changes anything about the semantics of the LD, then JSON-LD shouldn't be using JSON references (brutally put, I know), because it knowingly breaks the underlying JSON semantics.
-
@trwnh ...anything at all about the represented data.
If this changes anything about the semantics of the LD, then JSON-LD shouldn't be using JSON references (brutally put, I know), because it knowingly breaks the underlying JSON semantics.
@trwnh Since we're working with plain text analogies here, this is like putting non-ASCII bytes into a string without specifying anything about what they mean (i.e. an encoding).
-
@trwnh Since we're working with plain text analogies here, this is like putting non-ASCII bytes into a string without specifying anything about what they mean (i.e. an encoding).
@jens we might finally be on the same page
> Lower level processors cannot make assumptions about higher level processors, without being told to make them.
this is what i was trying to do, yeah. how can a lower level processor preserve higher level semantics? what do you need to "tell" them to retain alignment?
the references are kind of unavoidable, since this is the web we're talking about. you have multiple documents, but naive processors try to be "clever" and save you HTTP requests.
-
@jens we might finally be on the same page
> Lower level processors cannot make assumptions about higher level processors, without being told to make them.
this is what i was trying to do, yeah. how can a lower level processor preserve higher level semantics? what do you need to "tell" them to retain alignment?
the references are kind of unavoidable, since this is the web we're talking about. you have multiple documents, but naive processors try to be "clever" and save you HTTP requests.
@jens the "rub" is that AS2 claims to be "JSON-LD but you can totally ignore the LD part we promise lol"
you can *mostly* ignore a lot of the complexity, but only if you stay within the boundaries of activity+json semantics, i.e. "don't use external vocabs, and if you do, don't redefine activitystreams terms"
the extensibility mechanism is ld+json. you can include ld+json inside activity+json but you need to not violate the constraints of activity+json.
-
@jens the "rub" is that AS2 claims to be "JSON-LD but you can totally ignore the LD part we promise lol"
you can *mostly* ignore a lot of the complexity, but only if you stay within the boundaries of activity+json semantics, i.e. "don't use external vocabs, and if you do, don't redefine activitystreams terms"
the extensibility mechanism is ld+json. you can include ld+json inside activity+json but you need to not violate the constraints of activity+json.
@jens but also, any json can become ld+json with a sufficiently complex context definition. the ld+json processor cannot understand the implicit semantics of json; it needs to be made explicit in the form of a jsonld context.
we want the jsonld context's described semantics to not diverge from the *actual* semantics. we can't be aware of every vocab or media type in the world. so the semantic boundaries between individual resources are important.
but we do want to reduce those pesky roundtrips
-
@jens but also, any json can become ld+json with a sufficiently complex context definition. the ld+json processor cannot understand the implicit semantics of json; it needs to be made explicit in the form of a jsonld context.
we want the jsonld context's described semantics to not diverge from the *actual* semantics. we can't be aware of every vocab or media type in the world. so the semantic boundaries between individual resources are important.
but we do want to reduce those pesky roundtrips
@jens this is why i put "clever" in quotation marks. like, yes, that's just how references work, no problems there.
the problem is that you are taking something that isn't activity+json and sticking it in an activity+json document.
more precisely, the media type no longer applies to the *entire* document; there is a fragment of the document that has a different media type (like the hypothetical schemadotorg+json i was talking about earlier)
