search

IIIF / trc

Technical Review Committee issue review
Apache License 2.0
1 stars 1 forks source link

Publish Image and Presentation 3.0 Release Candidate #35

Open mikeapp opened 4 years ago

mikeapp commented 4 years ago

Links

Background and Summary

The Editors propose to publish (i.e., merge to master) the image_prezi_rc3 branch, which contains changes made since the June 2019 Beta release. We believe that all normative changes made since the Beta have already been reviewed and approved by the TRC in accordance with our policy.

The Editors would suggest that this version be labelled a 'release candidate' (or similar). We believe that it is desirable to indicate to the developer community that the specification is stable and unlikely to change significantly prior to final publication.

Proposed Solution

  1. Merge the image_prezi_rc3 branch.
  2. Develop a statement to the community about the release candidate status, and conditions under which changes might be made prior to release.
aisaac commented 4 years ago

I'm wondering where changes in the mappings between context and RDF vocabularies have been documented. I.e. profile is now dcterms:conformsTo instead of doap:implements, protocol is now dcterms:type instead of dcterms:conformsTo and service is schema:potentialAction instead of svcs:has_service. Maybe there are others?

Why the last one, by the way? This doesn't feel right at first sight. In https://github.com/IIIF/api/pull/1722 I didn't find a reference to this property. The type Service is mapped to schema:WebAPI, which is not really a schema:Action. Or am I misreading the JSON in the context files? Well, having this documented in the change log may fix my wrong interpretation then ;-)

azaroth42 commented 4 years ago

One of the decisions (back in the day) was that the alignment between the RDF terms and the JSON in the documents was not normative, and thus not subject to semantic versioning. This is a trade-off, of course, as it means we can better align the more stable API with the more fluid data modeling, but makes it harder for the (very small) proportion of users of IIIF that come with an RDF stack rather than a browser.

What this means for the current issue is ... the mapping between the API terms and the LOD world is not under consideration. We can fix any issues after 3.0 is released as final, because they're not part of the semantic versioning requirements.

aisaac commented 4 years ago

Thx for the clarification @azaroth42 ! So I guess this alleviates my concern for this issue. Still it may be good to add some explanation about this somewhere. The context is quite a key element of the spec. And about my issues: where should I raise my comments?

azaroth42 commented 4 years ago

@aisaac In the main IIIF/api repo please :)

glenrobson commented 4 years ago

Issue 35 (Publish Image and Presentation 3.0 Release Candidate)

+1: 29 [Siani81 ahankinson aisaac azaroth42 cubap dismorfo emulatingkat gigamorph hadro irv jbhoward-dublin jonhartzler joshuago78 jronallo jtweed julsraemy jwd markpatton mattmcgrattan mcwhitaker mejackreed mikeapp mixterj regisrob rentonsa scossu tomcrane tpendragon zimeon] 0: 0 [] -1: 0 []

Result: 29 / 29 = 1.00

Super majority is in favor, issue is approved