CASE JSON-LD binding context file problem

You are correct, Colin, that a namespace does not always have to be resolvable; but, here in the context file, URIs must be resolvable. I think the following is probably clear but I'll restate to make sure.

The context file uses "case" as the prefix for a compact URI identifying https://purl.imsglobal.org/spec/case/v1p0/vocab#. Vocabulary terms in the CASE schema are appended to the prefix (case)--for example, "case:fullStatement" which expands to the full URI https://purl.imsglobal.org/spec/case/v1p0/vocab#fullStatement. Resolving the expanded IRI should provide the schema or schema fragment where the definition of "fullStatement" can be found:

"The text of the statement. The textual content that either describes a specific competency or describes a less granular group of competencies within the taxonomy of the standards document."

.

Had CASE been born as linked data, the reference would likely be to a CASE RDF schema expressed in JSON-LD. I am less confident in saying that it can effectively reference the existing CASE JSON Schema.

You are correct, Colin, that a namespace does not always have to be resolvable; but, here in the context file, URIs must be resolvable. I think the following is probably clear but I'll restate to make sure.

The context file uses "case" as the prefix for a compact URI identifying https://purl.imsglobal.org/spec/case/v1p0/vocab#. Vocabulary terms in the CASE schema are appended to the prefix (case)--for example, "case:fullStatement" which expands to the full URI https://purl.imsglobal.org/spec/case/v1p0/vocab#fullStatement. Resolving the expanded IRI should provide the schema or schema fragment where the definition of "fullStatement" can be found:

"The text of the statement. The textual content that either describes a specific competency or describes a less granular group of competencies within the taxonomy of the standards document."

.

Had CASE been born as linked data, the reference would likely be to a CASE RDF schema expressed in JSON-LD. I am less confident in saying that it can effectively reference the existing CASE JSON Schema.

No, what is expected is a schema, not an HTML file. As JSON-LD, downstream users should be able to transform CASE instance data from JSON-LD to RDF/XML, Turtle, N-Triples etc. since JSON-LD is a serialization of RDF. I took the CFItem, CFDocument and CFPackage example data from the spec, combined them into a single JSON-LD file called CASE_Test.jsonld (uploaded here as CASE_Test.txt) and then tried to use EasyRDF [1] to convert the file to RDF/XML so I could produce a visual graph. It could not resolve the CASE namespace URI that we are discussing from the @context file and failed. I have attached here an png image of the error message (Error.png).

I also ran into another issue that I'll bring up in a separate comment regarding the new AssociationLink class.

[1] EasyRDF https://www.easyrdf.org/converter

No, what is expected is a schema, not an HTML file. As JSON-LD, downstream users should be able to transform CASE instance data from JSON-LD to RDF/XML, Turtle, N-Triples etc. since JSON-LD is a serialization of RDF. I took the CFItem, CFDocument and CFPackage example data from the spec, combined them into a single JSON-LD file called CASE_Test.jsonld (uploaded here as CASE_Test.txt) and then tried to use EasyRDF [1] to convert the file to RDF/XML so I could produce a visual graph. It could not resolve the CASE namespace URI that we are discussing from the @context file and failed. I have attached here an png image of the error message (Error.png).

I also ran into another issue that I'll bring up in a separate comment regarding the new AssociationLink class.

[1] EasyRDF https://www.easyrdf.org/converter