search

rightsstatements / rights-app

Web application to serve the rightsstatements.org vocabulary
http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/1.0/
European Union Public License 1.1
1 stars 3 forks source link

Which file extension to use for ld+json? #25

Closed acka47 closed 8 years ago

acka47 commented 8 years ago

The example on page 5 of the technical white paper (/data/NoC­CR/1.0.json ) suggests that .json should be used. In the IANA registration for the media type "application/ld+json" .jsonld is named as file extension. Currently, one can find both versions in the rights-app issues.

We should clarify which extension should be used by the rightsstatement application: .json or .jsonld?

anarchivist commented 8 years ago

I'm :+1: on allowing both .json and .jsonld. CC @no-reply @aisaac

acka47 commented 8 years ago

If we allow both, we still will have to decide where to link to in the HTML and in the Content-Location header.

no-reply commented 8 years ago

:+1: to both; treating .json as the canonical link, following e.g. IIIF.

aisaac commented 8 years ago

How about allowing both extensions and media types. application/ld+json with .jsonld application/json with .json The content of the file served would be the same of course, which would make it only a minor change to our original spec (and one that avoids long discussions about the matter :-) )

aisaac commented 8 years ago

Important point: this is being proposed while @no-reply is actually in my office :-)

no-reply commented 8 years ago

:+1:, but in that case, I think we want to use .jsonld when linking, in general. Some parsers may not like the application/json media-type (notably, it is not supported by Ruby-RDF's Reader#for(media_type) interface).

anarchivist commented 8 years ago

Agreed with @no-reply and @aisaac.

acka47 commented 8 years ago

Resolved. Closing.