Remove JSON-LD context section

[acoburn]

In general, specifications do not include a full JSON-LD context. Given that LWS-core already includes normative requirements to use the https://www.w3.org/ns/lws/v1 context URL, this removes the entire "JSON-LD Context and Vocabulary" section. The vocabulary and context documents are managed in the vocabulary document and published at:

JSON-LD context: https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-vocab/vocabulary.context.jsonld
LWS Vocabulary: https://w3c.github.io/lws-protocol/lws10-vocab/vocabulary.ttl

---

Preview | Diff

[elf-pavlik]

Should we include context hash similar to https://www.w3.org/TR/cid-1.0/#json-ld-context

[acoburn]

Should we include context hash similar to https://www.w3.org/TR/cid-1.0/#json-ld-context

With #183, we are externalizing security-related properties to other vocabularies, so there is less necessity to do so. That said, once we are closer to having a stable version of the context I wouldn't be opposed to including a hash. The downside would be that it will be impossible to change the content of the JSON-LD context without updating the specification.

[BigBlueHat]

The downside would be that it will be impossible to change the content of the JSON-LD context without updating the specification.

This can be seen as a feature rather than a bug from a security perspective. The VC Data Model v2.0 (for another example) includes a hash for its context:
https://www.w3.org/TR/2025/REC-vc-data-model-2.0-20250515/#base-context

This also (rightly) encourages implementers from the bad (but often default...) habit of dereferencing context URLs at runtime.

It may be possible to do both by providing narrowly specified/versioned context URLs with hashes in the specification(s) and a "live" context URL for those who are OK with a (potentially) moving target.

[acoburn]

@BigBlueHat thank you for this feedback. Incidentally, this was the topic I am hoping to ask about at the next JSON-LD WG meeting, provided that there is time in the agenda.

My question is basically: is it now best practice for specifications that define a JSON-LD context to also include a content hash in the specification text itself? One model for doing this is the CID-1.0 specification.