W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp@w3.org > June 2015

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

From: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:37:39 -0400
Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <public-ldp@w3.org>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20A4E905-E460-47F4-9AE7-F56C10655623@fjhirsch.com>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
+1 

Arnaud - I agree with your note that an it is not an error; I believe the goal in the 'errata' suggestion was to request a light-weight process means to update the LDP spec to make JSON-LD the default ('errata' was used to suggest that lightweight approach, not quite accurate).

That said, I think there is general agreement that Web Annotation WG can (and will) profile the LDP spec to require JSON-LD in the case no Accept header is specified, in effect profiling the SHOULD down,

We can progress on LDP.Next etc to get the LDP default aligned as Rob suggests.

Thanks for keeping us correct in our use of 'errata'.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Co-Chair, W3C Web Annotation WG

www.fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch

> On Jun 13, 2015, at 3:15 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 12 Jun 2015, at 20:34 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> 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.
> 
> +1
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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> 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> wrote on 06/11/2015 01:07:40 PM:
>> 
>>> From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
>>> To: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
>>> Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, W3C Public Annotation List
>>> <public-annotation@w3.org>, "public-ldp@w3.org" <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> 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
>>>> @fjhirsch
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jun 11, 2015, at 1:58 PM, David Wood <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> 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
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 15 June 2015 21:38:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:16:40 UTC