-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Try to register profile with IETF #324
Comments
RFC reference: https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7284.txt |
@azaroth42 I spoke with Markus (author of RFC7284) and he pointed me to the protocol assignment form--which I'm submitting now. Here's the contents of the request: What type of assignment/registration are you requesting?
Which registry are you requesting this assignment/registration be made in?
If possible, please give a brief description of why you need this assignment/registration:
Additional Information. Please include a reference to the specification or RFC (if available) that defines this number or name space:
I'll report back as it progresses. Cheers! |
Also, from the form response:
|
Great. IETF may reply that this would processed only if the W3C TR document goes to Proposed Recommendation. From their point of view, this would be understandable: it is only at a PR phase that the document gains the right level of stability. Ie, if this is their answer then we should simply point to the fact that a PR transition should happen within a few weeks. |
I've heard back with a request to add the information needed in the columns of this table (aka the registry): Here's what I intend to send: Profile URI: http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld
Common Name:
Web Annotation
Description:
A profile URI to request or signal the document is in the Web Annotation JSON format.
Reference: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/ Is the description (especially) clear enough? @iherman @azaroth42 @tcole3 Also, I reference the Data Model spec--as that's what defines the Web Annotation JSON(-LD) format--but we do not (yet?) reference the Profile URL in that spec...but rather in the Web Annotation Protocol spec. Should we add that in an Appendix? |
Isn't it more appropriate to refer to the protocol spec in the profile registration instead? The protocol spec refers to the annotation model, but the profile URI is really irrelevant for the model unless the protocol is used... |
@iherman yeah. I think you're probably right. However, I'm still a bit concerned that people storing and serving static Web Annotation documents--or doing so via a non-conformant API--will not find/know-about the profile. They either may not find it or assume it only pertains to Web Annotation Protocol implementations. I'd like to be sure we encourage the best possible habits. 😁 Thoughts? |
I think we are all right simply using the protocol reference. |
+1 to protocol. There's a reference to the model from the protocol, and vice versa. The protocol is where the actual definition of the profile and media type is, so I think it's the right reference. |
Given the above, I'll be submitting the following and will report back: Profile URI: http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld
Common Name:
Web Annotation
Description:
A profile URI to request or signal the document is in the Web Annotation JSON format.
Reference: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/ Thanks! |
Does it need to be ".jsonld" ? "http://www.w3.org/ns/anno" with content negotiation should be considered as an alternative. |
The profile is for It could have been defined without the |
Also, I don't see what other formats would be even possible for the context document? Conneg is already enabled for the actual namespace URI which is .../ns/oa# not .../ns/anno# |
We should start early to attempt to register the profile URI for annotations, as the process for registration seems new and we might run into workflow issues on both W3C and IETF sides. For example, is it sufficient to put it in our document, as per media types, or do we have to send it to ... someone? ... at IETF?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: