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> 
> 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 

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 

GitHub Notification of comment by iherman
Please view or discuss this issue at 
 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