- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 05:06:39 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@tilgovi: > Regardless of what we say and how easy it is, if it doesn't provide a tangible benefit felt by the developer they're going to ignore it. The question for us is whether we think developers will ignore the requirement to support turtle and, if so, if we really want to say haven't implemented the protocol. +1 to this pragmatic view. Regardless of how easy (or not) it is to implement the json-ld to turtle conversion, we cannot ensure people will do it. To put it more formally: if Turtle is a MUST, then a conformance requirement, as well as the corresponding tests, will have to include this. To have the protocol spec pass the bar of a Candidate Recommendation, we should have implementations *really* include this feature (@azaroth42, just having a separate Python helper code is not really convincing in my view, it should be part of a complete implementation). We incur the danger of not getting there. @azaroth42: The Python code you have shown is of course very simple at first glance. But: it relies, if I see it correctly, on the RDFLib library. Ie, the implementer has to go the extra mile to install a relatively large library which, if the implementer does not really use RDF inside, is completely useless. It is actually slightly worse: Last time I checked, RDFLib, as a default, does *not* include a JSON-LD parser (and serializer). An extra package (`rdflib-jsonld`) has to be installed. I do not see an implementer doing this just to satisfy a requirement for the standard's sake. -- GitHub Notif of comment by iherman See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/34#issuecomment-139118668
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 05:06:42 UTC