Open iherman opened 5 years ago
Or ... can @graph
be used in a frame document to dictate the presence of @graph
in the resulting JSON-LD document?
Well, the example frame defines either a set of objects in a bush or a graph as part of the (messy) JSON-LD specification. So yes, by using other means we may get a graph.
I realize that this would mean a non-trivial extension of the current framing algorithm, though.
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
RESOLVED: Work on a proposal for solving framing#29 along the lines of embedded contexts / scoped contexts, but for embedded sub-frames {: #resolution3 .resolution}
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
RESOLVED: Defer Framing #38 until a future version
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
RESOLVED: Defer framing #38 until future WG
I've a similar issue as mentioned here, where I need to define multiple types at root level with their own structure. Is there any update on this issue (last update is from June, 2019). In case, this is still under deferment, please let me know of any workaround for defining unreleted types at root level?
Looking at 2.3.1 I tested the core library example of the document on playground with the following frame
And I got the reply that a frame document must have only one frame object.
O.k., playground is playing per spec, but I was a bit surprised: why can't I have a frame like the one above? In the result, the 'library' would just list the books by ID, and the rest of the graph would include each book separately, including the relevant chapters. Isn't that a viable use case?