Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Inverse context creation, 4.3.2.3): what are the keys and values in active context? #630

Open
ghost opened this issue Feb 1, 2025 · 2 comments

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Feb 1, 2025

Hello,

In Inverse Context Creation (4.3.2), step 3 iterates over “key term and value term definition in the active context”. What does it mean? In 4.1, an active context is a product type, and the term definitions is one of the fields, as an array of term definitions.

Best regards,

Vivien

@w3cbot
Copy link

w3cbot commented Feb 26, 2025

This was discussed during the #json-ld meeting on 26 February 2025.

View the transcript

w3c/json-ld-api#630

<gb> Issue 630 Inverse context creation, 4.3.2.3): what are the keys and values in active context? (by ZLghkA)


pchampin added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2025
@pchampin
Copy link
Contributor

Hi Vivien,

you correctly assumed that this iteration of key-values concerns the terms definitions of the active context (as hinted by the name of the value). But...

the term definitions is one of the fields, as an array of term definitions.

This is indeed confusing. This should say that this is a map. And the definition of "term definition" in the terminology section should account for their internal representation described in Sec 4.1. Currently, it only describes their JSON/INFRA representation (which is applicable to "local context", but not to "active context", and yet the definition of "active context" points there).

pchampin added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2025
I'm not entirely satisfied with the addition in common/terms.html,
as it seems too detailed for the terminology section. But...

...as pointed out in the comment of #630,
the API spec references to this definition in multiple places,
and many of those links are actually for instances of the internal representation,
*not* for instances of the strings or maps that represent term definition in JSON.

So the alternative would be to introduce a new name for those "internal term definition"
and patch all the algorithms... which seems laborious and error-prone.

@gkellogg I don't remember what's the process for synchronizing the files in common with other specs.
@gkellogg gkellogg moved this to Discuss-Call in JSON-LD Management Mar 10, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: Discuss-Call
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants