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

It feels to me like we're talking about what an annotation client and a
generic LDP server can do quite a bit.

Should we also consider the impact this has on interop between an
annotation server that isn't a fully featured LDP server out of the box and
some kind of generic LDP client?

I'm not sure that distinction is useful but it kept coming up for me as I
read this thread.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015, 08:35 Henry Story <henry.story@co-operating.systems>
wrote:

>
> > On 13 Jun 2015, at 19:36, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hey, folks–
> >
> > If everyone else is satisfied that we can override a SHOULD in LDP with
> a MUST in Annotation Protocol, that's good enough for me.
> >
> >
> > I proposed an erratum on LDP simply because it seemed the easiest way to
> resolve the issue (for the LDP spec); errata don't have to be errors, they
> can also be issued because ongoing implementation experience differs from
> the Rec; if it turns out we get more LDP servers defaulting to JSON-LD than
> turtle, the spec would more accurately reflect interop if it we to change
> that statement. Errata can introduce changes that affect conformance [1],
> if warranted by the ecosystem.
> >
> > If there are major substantive changes needed for LDP, then probably a
> v2 is needed, which would require the re-formation of a chartered WG;
> otherwise, a 2nd edition can be made, which can be done by the W3C Team.
> >
> > But all this is administrivia that will only be relevant if we decide in
> the future that we need to update LDP. For now, it seems that we have
> consensus that we can require JSON-LD as the default return format for
> Annotation Protocol without causing a conflict with LDP.
>
> The only thing I'd say to this is that
> 1. the idea of having a Annotation server different from an LDP server is
> a bit weird, because annotation is clearly a subset of what can be done
> with LDP. It would be weird in that someone doing Annotations could then
> not use an LDP server out of the box.
> 2. Serving JSON-LD by default is only satisfactory to JSON folks in the
> very special case of the annotation representations served by the
> Annotation group. In any other case ( such as Activity Streams 2.0, serving
> JSON-LD by default won't be satisfactory to them).
>
> To really satisfy the JSON folks, we need an automatic way for them to
> specify the right form/profile/crystalisation of the documents produced, so
> that LDP servers can automatically generate them by following its nose ( of
> the URL in the profile=... of the mime type for example ), so that generic
> LDP servers can do the right thing .
>
> The action to take there is really to find the JSON-LD folks and see if
> they are up to specifying such a format, which could then be required by
> LDP-next. At the minimum it seems that the LDP group could here produce a
> short requirement that such a feature would be very helpful. This does not
> seem to be something the LDP next group can specify, but it would be very
> helpful to have.
>
>
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#rec-modify
> >
> > Regards–
> > –Doug
> >
> > On 6/12/15 2:34 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> >>
> >> I would be in favor of having JSON-LD as the default be a requested
> >> change to discuss early in the LDP-Next work.  I (personally) don't
> >> think it blocks the WAWG protocol work, as we have only minimal
> >> implementation experience to date and sufficient overlap between WAWG
> >> and LDPWG to have engaged and productive discussions, such as currently
> >> :)  As noted, the two are not incompatible.
> >>
> >> I agree with Arnaud that it's not a technical error -- it's completely
> >> implementable and in some circles it would be the appropriate choice.
> >>
> >> I would propose that Doug's additional question be discussed separately,
> >> initially in the WAWG list and then once there is clarity there, having
> >> further joint discussions.
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com
> >> <mailto:lehors@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>    I'm sorry but  I just don't see how this can be painted as an errata
> >>    and and this would change compliance. We may regret that JSON-LD
> >>    isn't the default instead of Turtle but that's how it is and it's
> >>    not an error.
> >>
> >>    When we started with LDP and adopted Turtle as the default over
> >>    RDF/XML this was seen as a hugely progressive move. At the time
> >>    there was no JSON-LD to talk about. As JSON-LD surfaced and become
> >>    more popular we progressively added in as much support as we could
> >>    for JSON-LD but by the time people felt it should be the default it
> >>    was just way too late to make the change.
> >>
> >>    That's just how it is.
> >>    --
> >>    Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web
> >>    Technologies - IBM Software Group
> >>
> >>
> >>    David Wood <david@3roundstones.com <mailto:david@3roundstones.com>>
> >>    wrote on 06/11/2015 01:07:40 PM:
> >>
> >>     > From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com
> >>    <mailto:david@3roundstones.com>>
> >>     > To: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com <mailto:w3c@fjhirsch.com>>
> >>     > Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org <mailto:distobj@acm.org>>, W3C
> >>    Public Annotation List
> >>     > <public-annotation@w3.org <mailto:public-annotation@w3.org>>,
> >>    "public-ldp@w3.org <mailto:public-ldp@w3.org>" <public-ldp@w3.org
> >>    <mailto:public-ldp@w3.org>>
> >>     > Date: 06/11/2015 01:08 PM
> >>     > Subject: Re: CfC: Resolution Annotation Protocol to make JSON-LD
> >>     > default  returned if no HTTP Accept request header (deadline 24
> >>    June 2015)
> >>
> >>     >
> >>     > Hi Frederick,
> >>     >
> >>     > That works for me.
> >>     >
> >>     > Regards,
> >>     > Dave
> >>     > --
> >>     > http://about.me/david_wood
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>     > > On Jun 11, 2015, at 15:44, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com
> >>    <mailto:w3c@fjhirsch.com>> wrote:
> >>     > >
> >>     > > I take this as support for filing an errata item on LDP to make
> >>     > the default SHOULD be JSON-LD when no Accept specified.
> >>     > >
> >>     > > regards, Frederick
> >>     > >
> >>     > > Frederick Hirsch
> >>     > > Co-Chair, W3C Web Annotation WG
> >>     > >
> >>     > > www.fjhirsch.com <http://www.fjhirsch.com>
> >>     > > @fjhirsch
> >>     > >
> >>     > >> On Jun 11, 2015, at 1:58 PM, David Wood
> >>    <david@3roundstones.com <mailto:david@3roundstones.com>> wrote:
> >>     > >>
> >>     > >> Mark (Hi, Mark!) is correct; interrelated specs invariably
> become
> >>     > a morass. If you want to prove it, try to trace through HTTP, URI,
> >>     > etc, to figure out which characters are allowed in an HTTP URL.
> >>     > Kudos to anyone who can do it in within a single day.
> >>     > >>
> >>     > >> Of course we should be as clean as possible. Just don’t insist
> >>     > upon perfection.
> >>     > >>
> >>     > >> Regards,
> >>     > >> Dave
> >>     > >> --
> >>     > >> http://about.me/david_wood
> >>     > >>
> >>     > >>
> >>     > >>
> >>     > >>> On Jun 11, 2015, at 01:14, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org
> >>    <mailto:distobj@acm.org>> wrote:
> >>     > >>>
> >>     > >>> This reminds me of that time when we had to revise HTTP to
> >>     > support GIF89a in addition to HTML. And then the CSS update, oy!
> >>     > Don't get me started on JPG!
> >>     > >>>
> >>     > >>> No, of course that never actually happened, because that
> >>    would be silly :P
> >>     > >>
> >>     > >
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rob Sanderson
> >> Information Standards Advocate
> >> Digital Library Systems and Services
> >> Stanford, CA 94305
>
>
>