GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — Current state of 1.1 development by fsteeg · Pull Request #284 · jsonld-java/jsonld-java

Conversation

@fsteeg

@fsteeg fsteeg commented Apr 28, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

As announced in #277 (comment), this PR contains the current functional changes for 1.1.

It also contains comments by @gkellogg from gkellogg@53aa216 (thanks!)

The diff on core/reports/json-ld-api-tests-skip shows the progress compared to the 1.1-tests branch (currently 94 removed lines, i.e. 94 additional passing tests). See individual commits for details on which code changes make which tests pass. Open the URLs for test details.

This is the report summary for 1.1 compliance with the current code (see 2318376):

tests pass
Compaction 101/238 (42.4%)
Expansion 124/366 (33.9%)
Flattening 45/55 (81.8%)
Framing 26/89 (29.2%)
HTML 3/49 (6.1%)
Remote document 3/18 (16.7%)
Transform JSON-LD to RDF 178/442 (40.3%)
Transform RDF to JSON-LD 39/51 (76.5%)

The base for this PR is set to 1.1-tests for a reviewable diff (i.e. merge into master after #283).

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
All reactions
fsteeg and others added 7 commits April 27, 2020 14:16
@fsteeg
Handle @version context entries
3a63d91
@fsteeg
Include new keywords when skipping createTermDefinition
5623b28
@fsteeg
Support @container array syntax
d953a4f
@fsteeg
Support JSON literals
e316b1c
@fsteeg
Some 1.1 tweaks
036d7db
@dr0i @fsteeg
Minor additions
a22f97e 
- be more verbose in some error messages
- add some more comments pointing to the specs
- add a blank node condition according to spec 16.4
@gkellogg @fsteeg
Some inline comments on areas that can use improvement for 1.1
b6ba9e8 
Focusing on expansion and context/term processing
@fsteeg
fsteeg requested a review from dr0i April 28, 2020 09:25
@fsteeg fsteeg assigned dr0i Apr 28, 2020
This was referenced Apr 28, 2020
This should fix issue #262 #265
Closed
Tests and setup for 1.1 development #277
Closed
@coveralls

coveralls commented Apr 28, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.04%) to 90.37% when pulling b6ba9e8 on 1.1 into 53470d6 on 1.1-tests.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
dr0i
dr0i approved these changes Apr 28, 2020
View reviewed changes
@dr0i dr0i assigned fsteeg and unassigned dr0i Apr 28, 2020
@lagivan lagivan mentioned this pull request May 27, 2020
JSON-LD 1.1 missing scoped context support #288
Open
@fsteeg

fsteeg commented Jul 3, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

I just discovered that there is a new Java implementation for JSON-LD 1.1, titanium-json-ld: https://github.com/filip26/titanium-json-ld. It is linked from https://json-ld.org/ and included in the conformance report at https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/reports/. Given the amount of work still required here, and the level of conformance already achieved by titanium-json-ld, I'm wondering if it actually makes sense to continue our effort here.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@ansell

ansell commented Jul 9, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I have not had time to put into this project recently. If the JSON-LD 1.1 changes are not progressing well, then that may be an option. I am merging this into the 1.1 branch based on Travis passing.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@ansell
ansell merged commit 3c8039f into 1.1-tests Jul 9, 2020
@fsteeg fsteeg mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2020
Tests and setup for 1.1 development #283
Merged
@fsteeg fsteeg mentioned this pull request Feb 2, 2021
@reverse with framing does not work #286
Closed
@dr0i dr0i mentioned this pull request Mar 1, 2021
Added support for JSON-LD 1.1 @json @type #307
Closed
@umbreak

umbreak commented Mar 1, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I did some benchmarks of both implementations and Json-LD Java is by far more performant.

As I mentioned on the repo it is very well just probably due to the fact that the Json-LD 1.1 spec is more complex and not to the titanium codebase. However it is good to keep track of it
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@gkellogg

gkellogg commented Mar 1, 2021

Copy link
Copy Markdown

I did some benchmarks of both implementations and Json-LD Java is by fr more performant.

As I mentioned on the repo it is very well just probably due to the fact that the Json-LD 1.1 spec is more complex and not to the titanium codebase. However it is good to keep track of it

Depending on which algorithms are involved, for 1.0-like data, the added complexity shouldn't really impact performance. There are some additional checks to look for scoped contexts in expansion and compaction, and for different container types, but I wouldn't expect these to have any significant affect on basic performance if these features aren't used.

A healthy eco-system depends on diverse implementations, and I hope that jsonld-java continues to make progress towards full 1.1 conformance.
All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
@fsteeg fsteeg mentioned this pull request Aug 18, 2021
Status of jsonld 1.1 #315
Open
This was referenced Feb 1, 2022
JSON-LD 1.1 support eclipse-rdf4j/rdf4j#3654
Closed
benchmark titanium against jsonld-java filip26/titanium-json-ld#209
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@dr0i dr0i dr0i approved these changes

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

@fsteeg fsteeg

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

6 participants

@fsteeg @coveralls @ansell @umbreak @gkellogg @dr0i
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.