- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:41:20 -0400
- To: Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com>, Randall Leeds <randall@bleeds.info>
- CC: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>
Yes, seems like a MUST can "override" a SHOULD. Even still, we should suggest an errata item for the LDP spec. There's also an open question for whether a Web Annotation Protocol server implementation can support only JSON-LD, and not Turtle. What if the client request includes a 'text/turtle' Accept header? Do you have to conform to LDP in this regard, in order to be a conforming Web Annotation Protocol server? Regards– –Doug On 6/10/15 8:34 PM, Cody Burleson wrote: > I just noticed actually, reading again, that a MUST overriding a SHOULD > does not actually create non-compliance. Even better. > > - Cody > > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 6:39 PM, Cody Burleson <cody.burleson@base22.com > <mailto:cody.burleson@base22.com>> wrote: > >> +1; I would venture to guess that the next version of LDP should >> consider doing the same. >> >> The only problem this could cause right now would be in trying to >> comply with both specs at the same time - creating an annotation >> system atop an LDP, for example, while still trying to pass all >> compliance tests. >> >> One is going to have to win. Personally I think that LDP needs to be >> the one to change. We talked about this a lot - and there was always a >> general vibe that JSON-LD might have been a better choice. If I can >> remember correctly, we agreed it should probably be a consideration of >> LDP Next. It's just that when we started discussing this, the train >> was already barreling down the tracks and there were always bigger >> fish to fry. >> >> - Cody >> >> On Jun 10, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Randall Leeds <randall@bleeds.info >> <mailto:randall@bleeds.info>> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:58 PM David Wood <david@3roundstones.com >>> <mailto:david@3roundstones.com>> wrote: >>> >>> +1, Robert. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dave >>> -- >>> http://about.me/david_wood >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 10, 2015, at 16:54, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> +1 as this is compatible with the LDP requirements and makes our >>>> usage of it easier. >>>> >>>> (I would be, conversely, -1 to anything that made our protocol >>>> incompatible with LDP, at least until we have actual experience >>>> to prove that the incompatibility is required) >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Frederick Hirsch >>>> <w3c@fjhirsch.com <mailto:w3c@fjhirsch.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> During today's Annotation WG teleconference we discussed and >>>> agreed on the following Resolution [1]: >>>> >>>> RESOLUTION: Annotation Protocol spec will override LDP >>>> 4.3.2.2 LDP servers SHOULD respond with a text/turtle >>>> representation of the requested LDP-RS whenever the Accept >>>> request header is absent with "MUST respond with JSON-LD" >>>> >>>> In essence we are profiling the LDP specification [2] in the >>>> Web Annotation Protocol specification [3] to have a 'MUST >>>> JSON-LD' instead of a 'SHOULD turtle' in the case no Accept >>>> request header is specified [2]. >>>> >>>> The reason is to simplify the default requirements for >>>> server-side implementation in the case of annotations to >>>> enable adoption as well as to be consistent in the >>>> preference of JSON-LD. >>>> >>>> We will make the specification language precise as part of >>>> adding it to the Web Annotation Protocol specification. >>>> >>>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to ensure wide agreement >>>> with this approach. If you have any significant concern with >>>> this approach, please indicate on the public annotation list >>>> before 24 June (2 weeks). Silence will be considered >>>> agreement. (a +1 to indicate support will also be useful if >>>> you were not on the call). Please note however that we had >>>> consensus on a well-attended call. >>>> >>>> This message is intentionally cross-posted to the public Web >>>> Annotation and LDP WG lists. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> regards, Frederick >>>> >>>> Frederick Hirsch >>>> Co-Chair, W3C Web Annotation WG >>>> >>>> www.fjhirsch.com <http://www.fjhirsch.com/> >>>> @fjhirsch >>>> >>>> [1] Draft minutes (may be cleaned up later) >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2015/06/10-annotation-minutes.html#item07 >>>> >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldprs >>>> >>>> [[ >>>> 4.3.2.2 LDP servers should respond with a text/turtle >>>> representation of the requested LDP-RS whenever the Accept >>>> request header is absent [turtle]. >>>> ]] >>>> >>>> [3] http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Rob Sanderson >>>> Information Standards Advocate >>>> Digital Library Systems and Services >>>> Stanford, CA 94305 >>>
Received on Thursday, 11 June 2015 02:41:26 UTC