FWIW, 1.1 works better for my use cases which are currently all Linked Art centric.
https://linked.art Dave Beaudet On Apr 23, 2022 13:16, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: What should the default settings be JSON-LD 1.0 or 1.1? It is not a simple choice. There is slightly pretty writing of JSON-LD 1.1 now - prefixes and native types. A new issue is e.g. https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fjena%2Fissues%2F1254&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ce588fae0f1d04750bb1a08da254cf794%7C53f6461e95ad4b08a8da973e49ae9312%7C0%7C0%7C637863309768468706%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z%2F8C6g5neNKttkS6e2ssOpUjH2dlMSLbU8Nwe0Lh314%3D&reserved=0 JSON-LD 1.1 is not completely backwards compatible with JSON-LD 1.0. Current status: There are two JSON-LD subsystems with their own language and format constants as well as terms for the system "JSON-LD" settings. API code can choose which it wishes to use. All the previous features of JSON-LD 1.0 writing are available this way. The decision is what are the defaults for application/ld+json. This affects Fuseki users where where isn't scope to have a switch between 1.0 and 1.1. In issues/1254, the reading client software isn't Jena so the conservative choice of writing 1.0 while reading 1.1 does not really work out. The decision for Jena is when to switch. JSON-LD 1.1 is becoming the norm. It isn't practical to remain at JSON-LD 1.0 indefinitely. I think we're at the point where we ought to switch reading and writing to JSON-LD 1.1 unless we have examples/evidence where this is a problem. Andy >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 11:39 AM Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Jena has both JSON 1.0, provided by jsonld-java, and JSON-LD 1.1, >>> provided by Titanium. >>> >>> What should the default settings be? >>> >>> For parsing that means what is bound to "application/ld+json" and file >>> extension .jsonld. >>> >>> For writing, it means what is setup for Lang.JSONLD. >>> >>> This is two decisions - parsing and writing can be different. >>> >>> >>> But. >>> >>> It is not so simple: >>> >>> 1/ For Java11, the default settings for java.net.http can't contact >>> schema.org. This seems to only affect on a few (maybe one) Java 11 build version. The latest Java11 available on Ubuntu works. >>> 2/ Jena is writing JSON-LD 1.1 without much in the way of transformation >>> nor creating a @context from the RDF data. It prints full URIs; numbers >>> aren't abbreviated etc etc. so it not very pretty. There is slightly pretty writing of JSON-LD 1.1 now - prefixes and native types. So there is "plain", no prefixes, no native types (and hence completely faithly RDF), and "pretty" (JSON numbers). Add issue 3: JSON-LD 1.1 is not completely backwards compatible with JSON-LD 1.0. e.g. https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fjena%2Fissues%2F1254&data=05%7C01%7C%7Ce588fae0f1d04750bb1a08da254cf794%7C53f6461e95ad4b08a8da973e49ae9312%7C0%7C0%7C637863309768468706%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=z%2F8C6g5neNKttkS6e2ssOpUjH2dlMSLbU8Nwe0Lh314%3D&reserved=0
