Skip to content

Fixed issue where expanded type IRI would be used rather than @type#330

Open
daltontc wants to merge 4 commits intojsonld-java:masterfrom
daltontc:bug/329_expanded_type
Open

Fixed issue where expanded type IRI would be used rather than @type#330
daltontc wants to merge 4 commits intojsonld-java:masterfrom
daltontc:bug/329_expanded_type

Conversation

@daltontc
Copy link

@daltontc daltontc changed the title Fixed issue where expanded type IRI would be used rather than @type #329 Fixed issue where expanded type IRI would be used rather than @type Feb 17, 2022
Copy link
Member

@dr0i dr0i left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is strongly related to #242.
I think we have to keep the behaviour in case of labeling an rdf:type, i.e. don't use the @type keyword, while we should indeed use @type otherwise.

"rdf:type" : {
"@id" : "http://example.com/rdf/id",
"rdf:label" : "someLabel"
}
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here we loose the label which is not good.
Look at the playground.
I think it's not possible to have a label for @type keyword in this way.
See also #242.

"@id": "http://example.com/Type"
}],
"@type" : ["http://example.com/Type"],
"http://example.com/prop1": [{"@id": "http://example.com/Obj1"}],
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

... while your code seems to be good in this case - compare
without @type and with @type , there is no difference in the nquads.
See also #242 (comment) where this is reported to be the expected outcome.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants