Re: Getting the group back on track

On 10/14/2015 05:46 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> The short answer is: nothing breaks. Implementations that support the
> `application/activity+json` media type will understand that AS 2.0 is
> a JSON-LD based syntax and will use JSON-LD mechanisms to process
> them. The implementations that intentionally choose not to use JSON-LD
> mechanisms to process are given sufficient warning that interop issues
> could arise from that decision.

I have impression that by saying "To have functioning interoperability
you need to process it as JSON-LD, but you can consider it as 'plain
JSON' if you don't mind interop issues to arise" we may mislead people
that they really can treat it as 'plain JSON'.

I also have hard time to understand why Harry while suggesting that most
people will ignore the JSON-LD aspect, doesn't mention that interop
issues could arise if one really does it...

> 
> Also,tThere is absolutely nothing stopping an implementation from
> using the `application/ld+json` media type when transmitting Activity
> Streams 2.0 data if they have good reason to do so. The
> `application/activity+json` media type is more specific, yes, but it
> *does not break anything*.
> 
> Also, quick correction on Melvin's post: the open issue on github is
> *not* about changing the media type to `application/activity+json`.
> It's about requiring the use of the `application/ld+json` media type
> with an additional profile parameter. I've seen absolutely no reason
> to require the `application/ld+json` media type and after implementing
> AS 2.0 support in a few applications, I see absolutely nothing that
> breaks or doesn't work by using the `application/activity+json` media
> type.
> 
> I'd very much like to just put the whole media type issue to rest as
> it really is a red herring. I've heard many times that it "breaks"
> things without seeing any actual evidence that things actually do get
> broken.
> 
> - James
> 
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:28 AM, elf Pavlik
> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
> [snip]
>>>
>>> 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)
>>
>> Systems which integrate AS2.0 data from multiple sources need at minimum
>> expand CURIEs to distinguish properties using full URIs
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#aggregation-of-extensions
>>
>> Also our charter says:
>>
>> "A transfer syntax for social data such as activities (such as status
>> updates) should include at least the ability to describe the data using
>> *URIs* in an extensible manner, time-stamping, and should include a
>> serialization compatible with Javascript (JSON) and possibly JSON-LD."
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2015 16:01:08 UTC