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

+1

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:58 PM David Wood <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> 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>
> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Rob Sanderson
> Information Standards Advocate
> Digital Library Systems and Services
> Stanford, CA 94305
>
>
>