Re: [web-annotation] Make Turtle support optional?


> Regardless of what we say and how easy it is, if it doesn't provide 
a tangible benefit felt by the developer they're going to ignore it. 
The question for us is whether we think developers will ignore the 
requirement to support turtle and, if so, if we really want to say 
haven't implemented the protocol.

+1 to this pragmatic view. Regardless of how easy (or not) it is to 
implement the json-ld to turtle conversion, we cannot ensure people 
will do it. 

To put it more formally: if Turtle is a MUST, then a conformance 
requirement, as well as the corresponding tests, will have to include 
this. To have the protocol spec pass the bar of a Candidate 
Recommendation, we should have implementations *really* include this 
feature (@azaroth42, just having a separate Python helper code is not 
really convincing in my view, it should be part of a complete 
implementation). We incur the danger of not getting there.


The Python code you have shown is of course very simple at first 
glance. But: it relies, if I see it correctly, on the RDFLib library. 
Ie, the implementer has to go the extra mile to install a relatively 
large library which, if the implementer does not really use RDF 
inside, is completely useless. It is actually slightly worse: Last 
time I checked, RDFLib, as a default, does *not* include a JSON-LD 
parser (and serializer). An extra package (`rdflib-jsonld`) has to be 
installed. I do not see an implementer doing this just to satisfy a 
requirement for the standard's sake.

GitHub Notif of comment by iherman

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 05:06:42 UTC