Re: Getting the group back on track

On 10/14/2015 08:09 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> On 13 October 2015 at 16:08, Christopher Allan Webber
> <cwebber@dustycloud.org <mailto:cwebber@dustycloud.org>> wrote:
>
>     Evan Prodromou writes:
>
>     > On 2015-10-12 10:28 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>     >> I dont think taking yet another JSON serialization to REC is a good
>     >> idea, when we already have a JSON REC (JSON LD) which is to all
>     >> intents and purposes identical.  I am wondering if there will
>     be some
>     >> formal objection down the line.
>     >
>     > Have you reviewed AS 2.0? It's explicitly compatible with
>     JSON-LD, as a
>     > design goal. It's more or less a vocabulary on top of JSON-LD.
>
>     Not only is it built on top of json-ld, if you go to
>     http://json-ld.org/playground/ you'll see there's even an [Activity]
>     button on there.  Hit the n-quads tab, you'll see that we can even
>     convert to RDF.
>
>     ActivityStreams is based on JSON-LD and is directly convertable to
>     RDF... I think the AS direction and the linked data direction
>     currently
>     have a smooth integration path.
>
>
> An HTTP response is not just a document.  It's a header too.  Both
> must be compatible with tooling to work out of the box.
>
> In particular there is an open issue regarding changing the JSON LD
> header field for content type to : "application/activity+json", for no
> particularly good reason, imho.
>
> This would break most existing tooling, and reducing the developer
> audience, and a whole raft of tooling.  While certain parts of the the
> playground *may* work in isolation, most other stuff would not.  Im
> unsure developers are going to want to retool to support AS2 given
> this, at least in the short term. 
>
> The other aspect having to then register this stuff with the standards
> body
> - mime type registered with IANA
> - new file extension chosen
> - file extension registered with IANA
> - wait to see if any of the W3C stake holders formally object
>
> This would substantially increase the chance of AS2 failing to gain
> traction, so I think some developers are waiting to see that outcome
> before investing time in implementation.

Can you point to what tooling breaks?

The larger issue with some of the RDF-centric approaches is that while
we can recommend Link HTTP headers and MIME types, most tooling that I
know of ignores both of these, and would also not expand JSON-LD (since
most tooling is JSON-centric)

   cheers,
          harry