JSON-LD & N3 - Re: CfC: Resolution Annotation Protocol to make JSON-LD default returned if no HTTP Accept request header (deadline 24 June 2015)

Seems a bit like a storm in a tea-cup. What is so difficult for clients to provide an accept header?

What is more important is that JSON-LD is closer to N3 than Turtle: ie it makes it easy to speak about quotations of other graphs. ( which are feasable in Turtle and RDF/XML, if one were to introduce simple data types such as rdf:Turtle eg 

 <#laura> believes "<http://hero.org/#SuperMan> a <http://hero.org/#FlyingBeing>"^^rdf:Turtle 

But because this type of quotation on graphs works with strings it is not possible to use the prefixes outside the literal and so things become tedious to write. N3 allows one to say the same more elegantly

 <#laura> believes { <#SuperMan> a <#FlyingBeing> } .

It is of course much easier to read this and express this in N3 than in JSON-LD.

But the real point behing JSON-LD & N3 move is that it is easier to start answering
questions here about how should a LDPC quote the contents of the ldp:contains resources. In both of these notations it is possible to solve this problem without creating reasoning errors. And this clearly means that some questions can be answered in LDP-next that were difficult to answer previously.

Henry

> On 10 Jun 2015, at 22:47, Frederick Hirsch <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
> @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/
> 
>

Received on Friday, 12 June 2015 08:00:13 UTC