Re: [ietf-types] Q's regarding development of +json media types

[Sandro Hawke <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 16:40 -0400, mike amundsen wrote:
> Experimental types should use the "prs" facet[1].
> 
> Vendor-specific types (non experimental, etc.) should use the "vnd" facet[2].
> 
> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288#section-3.3
> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288#section-3.2

Thanks for the pointer, and perhaps I'm being dense, but I still don't
see what subtree a developer, like Nathan, who is in the early stages of
potentially creating a standard should use.  It seems wrong to use vnd,
since he's not a vendor and (at least in this hypothetical) has no
intention of ever creating a product here, commercial or otherwise.  It
seems wrong to use prs, since that would associate the media type
forever with him, even though he might lose interest in a year, while a
community processes takes it over.

It seems like there's no name he can use when starting out that will
continue to be sensible years down the road, if the type becomes widely
adopted, perhaps being blessed by a standards body.  Is that the state
of the art, that you just have to plan to change the media type at some
point?

    -- Sandro

> mca
> http://amundsen.com/blog/
> http://twitter.com@mamund
> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
> 
> 
> #RESTFest 2010
> http://rest-fest.googlecode.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 16:32, Sandro Hawke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 16:23 -0400, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> >> I don't think it makes sense to describe JSON serializations of Notation 3 or N-Triples, as these are themselves just serializations of RDF. Perhaps what you're describing is two different JSON serializations of RDF, one which is more closely related to Notation-3 and the other N-Triples. Although, note that Notation-3 is, itself, a super-set of N-Triples (as is Turtle [1]), so is there really a requirement for two different serializations, or isn't it up to the author to chose a particular syntax using different capabilities of the format.
> >>
> >> Also, note that Notation-3 is more than a syntax, as it includes behavior as well as representation, which is one reason Turtle was created. A purely syntactic version of Notation-3 is n3-rdf [2], which is a relatively small super-set of Turtle itself.
> >>
> >> Does this relate, in anyway to JSON-LD [3], which is also an RDF serialization in JSON?
> >>
> >> Perhaps application/rdf+json would be an appropriate mime-type.
> >
> > When there's a W3C standard for this, in a year or two, sure.  Using
> > that for one of a dozen experimental candidates doesn't seem like it
> > would help interop very much.
> >
> > On the other hand, I don't have a good answer for Nathan's question.
> > What kind of media type name should one use for a random format that
> > might be forgotten in 3 months or might take over the world (and be very
> > widely implemented)?  I can't figure that one out.
> >
> >     -- Sandro
> >
> >> Gregg
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/
> >> [2] See N3-rdf at http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3
> >> [3] http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/specs/source/json-ld/
> >>
> >> On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Nathan wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I'm currently working on / experimenting with two JSON based
> >> > media-types, the first is a JSON based serialization of Notation 3, the
> >> > other a JSON based serialization of N-Triples.
> >> >
> >> > I've got to the point now where I have implementations of both and need
> >> > to content-negotiate over them, thus my initial question is what media
> >> > type should I use in the interim whilst experimenting?
> >> >
> >> > For a later date, if I were to move towards seeking registration, would
> >> > the best approach be to work on the specifications out with any
> >> > standards body, or to do the work as an internet-draft, or?
> >> >
> >> > Would the recommended approach be to work towards a json-schema approach
> >> > or towards a "+json" type?
> >> >
> >> > And finally, for JSON based media-types do you have any special
> >> > considerations or gotcha's I should be taking in to account at an early
> >> > stage?
> >> >
> >> > Best & TIA for any response,
> >> >
> >> > Nathan
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > ietf-types mailing list
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ietf-types mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ietf-types mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types
> >
>