-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
About context #147
Comments
@yarikoptic Thanks for the suggestion. I do understand the value of simplifying the information that is required in BIDS-Prov and I am happy to discuss how we can achieve that (simplification is indeed a driving idea in the specification of BIDS-Prov).
Relying on BIDS-Prov tooling to recreate a valid JSON-LD from BIDS-Prov documents is to me a point of weakness. This would require sustained effort on the BIDS-Prov tooling and, unfortunately, I think that long-term support is not guaranteed (although I hope this will happen clearly). I am keen for the BIDS-Prov document themselves to be valid JSON-LD as this will make it possible to benefit from the JSON-LD ecosystem of tools.
|
I think that particular quote relates to I agree that for a full formed .jsonld there should be I only wonder if there is a way to centralize |
if we are to avoid possible divergence from different .jsonld files pointing to different |
Update proposal for BIDS Prov (BEP028)
by @yarikoptic in #125 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: