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

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 02:41:27 UTC