Define media profile for frames

[gkellogg]

At some point, the Mime type defined in IANA Considerations needs to be registered. We should update the contact and probably to @iherman.

[iherman]

Fine with me. We can then proceed through the usual route. But I guess it is too early to register, isn't it?

[gkellogg]

Probably too early, but I wanted to get an issue set so we don’t forget to do it.

[azaroth42]

Why do we need a separate media type, rather than registering a profile for application/ld+json like expanded or compacted?

Frames are just JSON-LD documents that have special processing implications when applied to other JSON-LD documents.

As Framing does not have backwards compatibility requirements, I think we should consider our options. Especially with respect to https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/261.

[BigBlueHat]

@gkellogg in as much as the direct processing model is identical to application/ld+json) and only the context (sorry) in which it's used changes it's "meaning"--i.e. makes it a "frame" vs. a data document--I'd recommend avoiding another media type and leaning on profile as done for compact, expanded, and flattended: https://www.iana.org/assignments/profile-uris/profile-uris.xhtml

That said, there could be a case made for the MIME type registration's value in association with editors and file extensions...but sadly you can't state a file extension for non-Web use in association with a profile="" registry entry (which would've been nice for Web Annotation...).

[BigBlueHat]

Also fixed a wee typo in that section in 120c32b

[gkellogg]

A frame does have some elements that a normal JSON-LD document wouldn't, such as @default and other flags. But, it is a subtle distinction. I could see using a profile instead of an independent type.

@BigBlueHat that wasn't a typo, but it is debatable if application/frame-ld+json is better (or more correct) than application/ld-frame+json.

[BigBlueHat]

@gkellogg it wasn't? 😕 The registration info was for application/ld-frame+json, so application/frame-ld+json seemed incorrect. Sorry if I've totally misunderstood what was being expressed there.

Regardless, I'd suggest we stick with profiles if at their core they can all be processed as application/ld+json.

[gkellogg]

If they're inconsistent, then we should pick one. However, I think the profile solution is likely best.

[BigBlueHat]

@gkellogg could you change the title here to reflect this new proposal? Or close in favor of an issue focused on the profile proposal?

I'd like to get it on the agenda for a future call.

[BigBlueHat]

Related to https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/8

[iherman]

This issue was discussed in a meeting.

• RESOLVED: Use ld+json with a profile for media type of frames, import frame keywords to syntax with reference out. {: #resolution7 .resolution}
• RESOLVED: the use of the media type for a frame is RECOMMENDED not a MUST {: #resolution8 .resolution}
  View the transcript

  Define media profile for frames
  Adam Soroka: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-framing/issues/21
  Adam Soroka: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-framing/issues/28
  Gregg Kellogg: the framing document that did not become a rec has a mimetype in it
  … but that was a bad idea– we have profiles!
  … we have a profile param that identifies a context
  … we don’t require that the context be published with that profile
  … should we require that of frames?
  … you might want to do that because frames use different keywords
  Rob Sanderson: if you push a frame document into a regular JSON-LD proc, it should beef
  Gregg Kellogg: [describes framing in general]
  Rob Sanderson: ref: https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11-framing/ ;)
  Ivan Herman: gkellogg: should this be a profile or a separate mediatype?
  Ivan Herman: a mediatype points to a specific document that describes that mediatype. those docs are different in this case, so the mediatypes should be different
  Gregg Kellogg: using the parameter would allow us to negotiate for a context
  David Newbury: thinking about the IIIF use case, being able to request docs as either a context or a frame
  Gregg Kellogg: if you reference a context but it comes back as a frame, you could change you inx model to account for that
  David Newbury: IIIF use a “context” as we use a “profile”, e.g. to include a version
  … but that seems okay because we could do it either way
  Gregg Kellogg: we describe the behavior of downloading a context and we would need to account for this there.
  Ivan Herman: if you don’t register a new mediatype for frame, we will have to change our docs, so which one requires more work?
  Rob Sanderson: if we say separate mediatype, we need tests for that
  … frames out there in the wild would now fail
  Rob Sanderson: if that is decisive, we should rec that a profile SHOULD be used
  … to avoid that
  Proposed resolution: Use ld+json with a profile for media type of frames, import frame keywords to syntax with reference out. (Rob Sanderson)
  Rob Sanderson: +1
  Ivan Herman: +1
  Harold Solbrig: +1
  Gregg Kellogg: +1
  Simon Steyskal: +1
  Adam Soroka: +1
  David I. Lehn: +1
  Jeff Mixter: +1
  David Newbury: +1
  Benjamin Young: +1
  Resolution #7: Use ld+json with a profile for media type of frames, import frame keywords to syntax with reference out. {: #resolution7 .resolution}
  Proposed resolution: the use of the media type for a frame is RECOMMENDED not a MUST (Rob Sanderson)
  Rob Sanderson: +1
  Ivan Herman: +1
  Adam Soroka: +1
  Gregg Kellogg: +1
  Simon Steyskal: +1
  David Newbury: +1
  David I. Lehn: +1
  Harold Solbrig: +1
  Resolution #8: the use of the media type for a frame is RECOMMENDED not a MUST {: #resolution8 .resolution}
  Jeff Mixter: +1
  

[akuckartz]

I do not understand the resolution. Was it in favor of a specific Media Type for frames or not?

[iherman]

@akuckartz : the idea is that the syntax document, more exactly the grammar of JSON-LD, should include the frame specific terms, too, which means that, from a media type point of view, a frame document would be a bona fide JSON-LD document. Ie, no need for a separate media type.