search

creativecommons / sre-salt-prime

Site Reliability Engineering / DevOps SaltStack configuration files
MIT License
20 stars 9 forks source link

license pages do not respond to Accept headers (ex. for requesting RDF) #253

Open dunn opened 6 years ago

dunn commented 6 years ago

Expected Behavior

Sending an Accept header with the desired content-type (e.g., RDF) should result in CC returning the RDF for a license, rather than the HTML:

curl -iL -H 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Actual Behavior

The server ignores the Accept header and returns HTML.

This is a separate issue from https://github.com/creativecommons/creativecommons.org/issues/542; in that case it was a separate URL that was down.

@robmyers @little-wow

rheaplex commented 6 years ago

I've checked the code and we do not currently implement this behaviour.

Currently, the rdf files are treated as distinct documents rather than different content types for the same document. Since the rdf is not simply a different marking-up of the same text, I think it is reasonable to keep them as distinct documents.

dunn commented 6 years ago

If we want RDF, should we just be appending /rdf to the URIs?

Out of curiosity, was this behavior implemented at some point in the past? At least one RDF library uses the non-RDF URIs, apparently assuming sending the Accept headers will work: https://github.com/curationexperts/oargun/blob/master/lib/oargun/vocabularies/cclicenses.rb

mzeinstra commented 6 years ago

I believe I remember that there was some content negotiation as some point in the past. The reason that I believe this was the case is twofold.

  1. you recommend it in section 5.2 of the ccrel primer.
  2. Over at rightsstatements.org a lot of the insights of CC have been mimicked and that platform has content negotiation.

Also I would argue the RDF is the same document as the deed, not as the legal text, and could be dealt with Accept headers.

Dunn, I'm not a CC-developer. I just been around a long time around cc tech. I am member of the tech. working group at rightsstatements.org

escowles commented 6 years ago

👍 to adding support for content negotiation. I think the RDF and HTML are different formats of the same information, and the fact that the RDF subject URI is the same as the HTML URI supports this view.

pornpailin commented 6 years ago

Note

dunn commented 5 years ago

Any further consideration about (re)adding this behavior?

kgodey commented 5 years ago

We're adding this to our queue of issues to consider/work on but we can't promise a timeline.