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

[mike amundsen <[e-mail]>]

<snip>
> 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?
</snip>

Yes, AFAIK, that is correct. If you want it blessed by the standards
body, you need to use a name in the standards tree and go through the
standards process.

While I can't speak from experience (surely there are others on this
list who can), I suspect a valid pattern to follow is to register a
"prs" or "vnd" media type id (as appropriate to your circumstance) and
then, as things get popular, adopt a new standards-level media type id
and register that one separately.

This process will result in two media types, one of which can
eventually be deemed "Obsolete [2] (since registered types cannot be
deleted).

FWIW, I left out the doc's reference to the "x." and "x-" facets[1]
which might appeal to some despite the "discouragement" voiced in the
doc. I've seen new media types adopted using this "x" pattern by both
persons and vendors.


[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288#section-3.4
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4288#section-10

mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me


#RESTFest 2010
http://rest-fest.googlecode.com




On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 00:13, Sandro Hawke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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
>> >
>>
>
>
>