Re: Observations on WebID definition and specification

Jacopo,

I don't completely get the ecosystem argument.

Mandating serializations in a spec does not automagically make parsers
for those serializations appear in the RDF ecosystems, does it?

Content negotiation is a transparent HTTP mechanism for finding an
intersection between server-supported and client-supported
serializations. Overriding it by mandating serializations explicitly
only breaks this transparency, and does nothing to increase
interoperability IMO.

Martynas

On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 4:29 PM Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Martynas,
>
> Answering personally, I don’t think that there’s anything justifying a different media type treatment. I do think, however, that the RDF ecosystem as a whole poses a significant challenge to implementors due to the amount of formats that are in use within it. I would, therefore, make the same considerations WRT any other foundational (or would-be foundational) RDF spec. I don’t do so because I only participate in this CG :).
>
> Speaking more practically, the state of RDF parsers and serializers is nowhere near as developed once one looks outside of the Java and NPM ecosystems. Even whithin these two, and I’m personally more familiar with the NPM one, supporting RDFa, Turtle and JSON-LD often pushes dependencies past the limits imposed by corporate processes (license clearing, to make an example). Furthermore, formats like full-fledged JSON-LD and RDFa are rather unfriendly to low-power applications.
>
> So yeah - no particular difference that I can see. However, and I’m growing more confident every time I think about it, I do think that removing media type requirements could well lead to format convergence, if perhaps  counterintuitively. I’d be willing to take that risk.
>
> Best,
> J.
>

Received on Monday, 5 February 2024 13:39:39 UTC