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

Re: [web-annotation] Yet Another JSON-LD the protocol spec to use?

From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 05:10:52 +0000
To: public-annotation@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-120573371-1436591452-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

> On 10 Jul 2015, at 23:32 , Rob Sanderson <notifications@github.com> 
wrote:
> 
> ideally, we should have defined everything in terms of pure JSON, so
 that people only dealing with JSON could read the spec and never even
 read about the RDF view. and then a separate spec could tell those 
interested in an RDF view of everything how to do this robustly on top
 of the JSON.
> 
> This would argue in favor of splitting Model and Serialization into 
two separate documents. Serialization could then focus exclusively on 
the JSON format, with reference to the model.
> 
> However it does not affect protocol, as we inherit the MUST from LDP
 of support for the turtle syntax, and thus RDF.
> 
> the extra load on Annotation Servers is minimal, but purely JSON 
clients would not have to actively disregard the @context property 
from the returned data
> 
> I don't follow the logic here. By adding a real implementation 
requirement to the server, we prevent the client from having to ignore
 something that it's clearly going to ignore anyway, and indeed 
required to ignore by the relevant specifications?

Do not understand this last point. If the returned JSON payload does 
not include `@context`, it is easier on pure JSON based 
implementations, while JSON-LD implementations go on unchanged because
 they get the `@context` through the header. I do not think it is the 
same

Ivan


> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704






-- 
GitHub Notif of comment by iherman
See 
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/52#issuecomment-120573371
Received on Saturday, 11 July 2015 05:10:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:37 UTC