Try to register profile with IETF

[azaroth42]

We should start early to attempt to register the profile URI for annotations, as the process for registration seems new and we might run into workflow issues on both W3C and IETF sides. For example, is it sufficient to put it in our document, as per media types, or do we have to send it to ... someone? ... at IETF?

[azaroth42]

RFC reference: https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7284.txt

[BigBlueHat]

@azaroth42 I spoke with Markus (author of RFC7284) and he pointed me to the protocol assignment form--which I'm submitting now.

Here's the contents of the request:

What type of assignment/registration are you requesting?

Profile URI

Which registry are you requesting this assignment/registration be made in?

Profile URI

If possible, please give a brief description of why you need this assignment/registration:

Per RFC 7284 recommends adding Profile URIs to this central registry "to ensure interoperability and decrease the coupling between clients and servers."

Consequently, the Web Annotation Working Group (of which I am an active participant and co-editor of the Web Annotation Data Model) would like to add the Profile URI we require for the Web Annotation Protocol.

Additional Information. Please include a reference to the specification or RFC (if available) that defines this number or name space:

The Web Annotation Protocol requires that Web Annotations be served with the application/ld+json media type and that it SHOULD use the profile=http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld parameter. We hope this registration will encourage use of the profile URI.

The complete media type declaration presented in a request is: application/ld+json; profile="http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld

The requirement is stated here: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/#h-annotation-retrieval

I'll report back as it progresses.

Cheers! 🎩

[BigBlueHat]

Also, from the form response:

Your application has been added to the processing queue. Processing typically takes about one week.

[iherman]

On 2 Nov 2016, at 14:27, BigBlueHat notifications@github.com wrote:

Also, from the form response:

Your application has been added to the processing queue. Processing typically takes about one week.

Great.

IETF may reply that this would processed only if the W3C TR document goes to Proposed Recommendation. From their point of view, this would be understandable: it is only at a PR phase that the document gains the right level of stability. Ie, if this is their answer then we should simply point to the fact that a PR transition should happen within a few weeks.

[BigBlueHat]

I've heard back with a request to add the information needed in the columns of this table (aka the registry): http://www.iana.org/assignments/profile-uris/profile-uris.xhtml#table-profile

Here's what I intend to send:

Profile URI: http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld
Common Name:
  Web Annotation
Description:
  A profile URI to request or signal the document is in the Web Annotation JSON format.
Reference: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/

Is the description (especially) clear enough? @iherman @azaroth42 @tcole3

Also, I reference the Data Model spec--as that's what defines the Web Annotation JSON(-LD) format--but we do not (yet?) reference the Profile URL in that spec...but rather in the Web Annotation Protocol spec. Should we add that in an Appendix?

[iherman]

Isn't it more appropriate to refer to the protocol spec in the profile registration instead? The protocol spec refers to the annotation model, but the profile URI is really irrelevant for the model unless the protocol is used...

[BigBlueHat]

@iherman yeah. I think you're probably right. However, I'm still a bit concerned that people storing and serving static Web Annotation documents--or doing so via a non-conformant API--will not find/know-about the profile. They either may not find it or assume it only pertains to Web Annotation Protocol implementations.

I'd like to be sure we encourage the best possible habits. 😁

Thoughts?

[iherman]

@iherman https://github.com/iherman yeah. I think you're probably right. However, I'm still a bit concerned that people storing and serving static Web Annotation documents--or doing so via a non-conformant API--will not find/know-about the profile. They either may not find it or assume it only pertains to Web Annotation Protocol implementations.

If implementers use our protocol, then they will have to look at the Protocol document where there is a reference to the profile. If they do not use our protocol, then we cannot help them:-)

I think we are all right simply using the protocol reference.

[azaroth42]

+1 to protocol. There's a reference to the model from the protocol, and vice versa. The protocol is where the actual definition of the profile and media type is, so I think it's the right reference.

[BigBlueHat]

Given the above, I'll be submitting the following and will report back:

Profile URI: http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld
Common Name:
  Web Annotation
Description:
  A profile URI to request or signal the document is in the Web Annotation JSON format.
Reference: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/

Thanks!

[akuckartz]

Does it need to be ".jsonld" ? "http://www.w3.org/ns/anno" with content negotiation should be considered as an alternative.

[BigBlueHat]

The profile is for application/ld+json and that URL is from the Web Annotation Protocol specification.

It could have been defined without the .jsonld perhaps, but I think that :ship: has sailed. Given that it's a JSON-LD profile, I think the URL being for that specific representation is fine.

[azaroth42]

Also, I don't see what other formats would be even possible for the context document? Conneg is already enabled for the actual namespace URI which is .../ns/oa# not .../ns/anno#

[BigBlueHat]

All done: http://www.iana.org/assignments/profile-uris/profile-uris.xhtml

😄