IIIF presentation version 3

[hackartisan]

For scanned maps we serve a version 3 manifest at a path like v3/manifest. For audio we just serve v3 manifests from the original path.

Should we choose one of these two approaches over the other? Are we ready to serve all resources in v3? And if so, do we need to continue providing v2 for any resources?

Some discussion and possibly research is needed before we can proceed.

Proposal

Publish a v3 endpoint, move everything over to that, and redirect old path to that.

Then we can re-evaluate when v4 comes out.

Plan

• [x] Split out manifest builder (v2) tests into multiple test files by resource type - create a PR for this
• [x] Migrate the tests that go through the v2 route so that they use the v3 code (audio and video resources)
  • [x] Remove the corresponding tests and code from the v2 code paths
• [ ] Copy each remaining v2 code path to v3
  • copy the test from spec/services/manifest_builder/by_resource_type to spec/services/manifest_builder_v3/by_resource_type and make it use the v3 code and make it pass.
  • As we migrate each resource, continue to serve it from its v2 location until they're all done and all the v3 tests pass
  • It's probably best to not take too long to do this; we'd want to avoid maintaining both code paths for an extended length of time.
• [ ] Redirect v2 manifest paths to the v3 path, test it out in staging
• [ ] write all manifest urls to the v3 path
• [ ] Delete all of v2 tests and code

[hackartisan]

a comment from a while back on the iiif slack:

mat 6 months ago Hey all -- At Northwestern, we’re in the process of moving from Presentation 2.x to 3.0 for our image focused objects, and I’m trying to collect institutional cases of similar moves. Is anyone aware of documented upgrades? I’m mainly concerned with how and/or if Manifests continued to be published at the same URI or if institutions choose to publish v2 and v3 at separate URIs to maintain a past record. (edited)

8 replies

stephenwf 6 months ago Wellcome did a migration using redirects for existing manifests: Original (p2) https://wellcomelibrary.org/iiif/b18035723/manifest Above redirects to (p2): https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/presentation/v2/b18035723 And then the new canonical (p3): https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/presentation/v3/b18035723 I'm not sure if they do content negotiation ( @tomcrane ?) (edited)

tomcrane 6 months ago Yeah, publish 2 and 3 on new URLs, redirect old 2 to new 2. Make a canonical path which accepts conneg but also publish explicit version URLs as above. https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/presentation/b18035723 is v3 and canonical.