W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > December 2015

Re: [web-annotation] Define json-ld profile URI for OA serialization context and structure

From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:15:52 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-165180831-1450286151-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

> On 16 Dec 2015, at 17:05, Doug Schepers <notifications@github.com> 
wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure we have consensus around using application/ld+json as 
the MIME type. I'd prefer a specific MIME type (and file extension) 
for annotations, since we're trying to foster an environment of 
targeted annotation clients, not just to make something that's 
processable by generic JSON-LD processors (which this format will be 
anyway). Couldn't we compromise with something like 
application/ld+json+anno, so an annotation UA would know that it's an 
annotation, and it could still be handled by generic JSON-LD 
processors?
> 
> 

I guess it should anno+ld+json to go from the most specific to the 
most general. But, and somebody please correct me if I am wrong 
(because I would like to be wrong) the media type specifications have 
only a two level hierarchy. Ie, a generic JSON-LD processor will *not*
 understand ``../anno+ld+json`` I believe, only ``../ld+json``. A 
generic JSON processor will understand ``../ld+json`` because JSON-LD 
is defined as a subtype of JSON. 

I think we have two, *non-exclusive* possibilities.

1. Add a profile to ``./ld+json``, which is the current proposal, 
works with generic JSON-LD processors, as well as *JSON-LD* aware 
Annotation processors. It also works with generic JSON processors.

2. Define a separate media type of the form ``../anno+json``. Generic 
JSON processors can of course handle that, as well as specific 
Annotation processors whether they are JSON-LD aware or not.

I think the present issue addresses only (1) above, and it is a good 
thing to have this. That has now been decided. (2) is a separate 
issue; I will raise it as such on the issue list. Personally, I am 
undecided whether we want to do (2) or not, but that can be decided 
later.




-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/30#issuecomment-165180831
 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 17:15:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:43 UTC