keyword aliases for @id and @type cannot be singly @protected?

[azaroth42]

In section 4.1.5 (and equivalent in the algorithm) it says that aliases applied to keywords are ignored, other than (per 4.3.3) the use of @container:@set applied to @type.

However, the @protected keyword can be applied to keyword aliases by setting it in the context overall. This is at odds with the text, and prevents protecting ONLY the (very common, and important) aliases for @id and @type.

Propose (I know, 11th hour) that @protected be allowed as an entry for keyword aliases (unless we already discussed this and decided against it, and I'm just forgetting). We can already protect them, just by the syntactic sugar form of setting it at the context level.

[azaroth42]

Works as expected:

{
  "@context": [{
    "@version": 1.1,
    "@protected": true,
    "id": "@id",
    "type": {"@id" : "@type", "@container": "@set"},
    "@type": {"@container": "@set"}
  },
  ... context here that tries to modify id, type or @type and cannot ...
  ],
  "id": "http://example.com/1",
  "type": ["http://example.org/ns/Foo"]
}

Does not work, as @protected is ignored for aliases of keywords:

{
  "@context": [{
    "@version": 1.1,
    "id": {"@id": "@id", "@protected": true},
    "type": {"@id" : "@type", "@container": "@set", "@protected" : true},
    "@type": {"@container": "@set", "@protected": true}
  },
    ... context here that tries to modify id, type or @type ... and succeeds! ...
  ],
  "id": "http://example.com/1",
  "type": ["http://example.org/ns/Foo"]
}

[azaroth42]

Also, the syntax is inconsistent with the API definition.

Syntax says that the definitions will be ignored, whereas API says "Any other value means that a keyword redefinition error has been detected and processing is aborted."

The API is the correct intention, and the syntax document should be updated to this effect.

[azaroth42]

Changing to editorial as the algorithm is in -api, not -syntax

[azaroth42]

@gkellogg to look through other normative sections to ensure consistency

[azaroth42]

Resolution: Allow the use of @protected as a valid keyword in term definitions which are aliases of keywords or where the term is @type.

[iherman]

This issue was discussed in a meeting.

• RESOLVED: Allow the use of <code>@protected</code> as a valid keyword in term definitions which are aliases of keywords or where the term is <code>@type</code>
  View the transcript

  keyword alias for @id and @type cannot be singly @protected
  Benjamin Young: See Syntax issue 246
  Rob Sanderson: if you alias @type to type it can still be a set
  … however, using @protected on an object-based term definition will not protect the id aliasing
  … so my proposal is that we change @protected to be a legal keyword for keyword aliases
  Gregg Kellogg: does @protected protect the @type based aliasing?
  Rob Sanderson: [adds more examples to 246]
  Ivan Herman: the examples don’t show any reason for the @protected
  Rob Sanderson: [fixes examples]
  … [reads text from 4.1.5]
  … [reads text from 4.3.3]
  Gregg Kellogg: looks like the API is correct
  Rob Sanderson: ah, so they’re out of sync
  Gregg Kellogg: we do need more @protected text in this API section
  Rob Sanderson: so the syntax fix is editorial
  Proposed resolution: Allow the use of @protected as a valid keyword in term definitions which are aliases of keywords or where the term is @type. (Rob Sanderson)
  Rob Sanderson: +1
  Gregg Kellogg: +1
  Benjamin Young: +1
  Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1
  Ivan Herman: +1
  Resolution #2: Allow the use of @protected as a valid keyword in term definitions which are aliases of keywords or where the term is @type
  

[gkellogg]

I added the syntax change in cfd32c665fd728ed5198bdf9c3ad606723074a27, but intended to do a PR. Can't easily undo that, so please check it out and see if the change is reasonable.

[gkellogg]

WG resolved to close the issue as complete.