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

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