Issue 565: Defining rules for automatically generating a JSON-LD context

ID: 
565
Starting Date: 
2021-11-12
Working Group: 
2
Status: 
Done
Background: 

In the 51st CIDOC CRM & 44th FRBRoo SIG meeting, upon discussing issue 555 and specifically working towards automatically generating a JSON-LD context, the SIG decided to start a new issue where to determine the rules for automatically generating a JSON-LD context. 

HW: RS, ETz, PF

In the 52nd joint meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9; 45th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting; PF presented the state of the issue: ETz has produced a JSON-LD, RS has provided feedback. The file can be found here.

Proposal 1:  have an unversioned URL for the JSON-LD context corresponding to the last published version of CIDOC-CRM (currently 7.1.1) and versioned URLs corresponding to old versions of CIDOC-CRM (e.g., https://cidoc-crm.org/cidoc-crm/7.1.1/json-ld_context.jsonld -when another official version is released)

Proposal 2: provide the file as a new “encoding” in the resources page (under the relevant version):

Decision: have both unversioned and versioned URLs for the JSON-LD context and also list the context under the encodings available (relevant version)

 

February 2022

Outcome: 

In the 53rd CIDOC CRM & 46th FRBRoo SIG meeting, PF showed the JSON-LD file for v7.1.1 and where it can be accessed from (separate file per published version). There is an unversioned URI pointing to the last published community version.

Discussion points:

  • The labels on the versions should be reconsidered, the unversioned URIs point to the last published community version (for now v7.1.1). V7.2 is also a published version; however, it does not serve as “community standard”, and as such versionless URIs do not point to it (it doesn’t have an rdfs implementation or other encodings at the moment). It comes however with some errors, that have also transferred to v7.2.1 (and have been inherited from version 7.1, so they are also found in v7.1.1 & 7.1.2)
    • Despite E4 Period being a subclass of E92 Spacetime Volume:
      • P161 has spatial projection (is spatial projection) [D:E92 Spacetime Volume, R: E53 Place] had been listed as a subproperty of P7 took place at (witnessed) [D:E4 Period, R: E53 Place]
      • P7 took place at (witnessed) [D:E4 Period, R: E53 Place] had been listed as a superproperty of P161 has spatial projection (is spatial projection) [D:E92 Spacetime Volume, R: E53 Place]
    • This is a typo and needs to be edited (v7.1.2 and v7.2.1)

Decision: Close the issue, edit the super- vs. sub-property relation btw P7 & P161 in both currently maintained versions, start a new issue re the labels for version-status 

Issue closed

May 2022

Reference to Issues:

555
RDFS Implementation and related issues

Meetings discussed:

52nd CIDOC CRM and 45th FRBR CRM