Incorrect JSON-LD: Missing '#' from the end of @vocab param in Core Example 2

[TGNThump]

Please Indicate One:

• Editorial
• Question
• Feedback
• Blocking Issue
• Non-Blocking Issue

Please Describe the Issue:

https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#ex2-context should be

{
  "@context": {
     "@vocab": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#",
     "ext": "https://canine-extension.example/terms/",
     "@language": "en"
  },
  "summary": "A note",
  "type": "Note",
  "content": "My dog has fleas.",
  "ext:nose": 0,
  "ext:smell": "terrible"
}

instead of

{
  "@context": {
     "@vocab": "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
     "ext": "https://canine-extension.example/terms/",
     "@language": "en"
  },
  "summary": "A note",
  "type": "Note",
  "content": "My dog has fleas.",
  "ext:nose": 0,
  "ext:smell": "terrible"
}

as it does not expand correctly as JSON-LD without the # on the end of the @vocab context parameter.

[sebilasse]

Yes. Mentioned it recently in a socialhub discussion.
There seem to be some places in the spec. having the wrong namespace unfortunately.
Multiple examples (also 1 or 3) …

[evanp]

Based on this conversation and review, I've made an update to the ERRATA.md to note that this vocab value is incorrect. Please comment further on this PR:

#545

[evanp]

So this needs to be included in our ERRATA. I will bring it up for our next CG meeting.

[tesaguri]

545 is technically correct, but what is the point of example 2 in the first place?

I think the best practice is to just import the normative context, and I don't think there is reason not to do it, that at least justifies a dedicated example in the spec. The example seems to be carefully avoiding terms whose expanded term definitions are more than just an @id, but what if the document used, say, the id term? That would result in something like "as:id": "https://example.com/object", which wouldn't make sense.