Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Can ACL docs be in JSON-LD? #45

Closed
michielbdejong opened this issue May 9, 2019 · 8 comments
Closed

Can ACL docs be in JSON-LD? #45

michielbdejong opened this issue May 9, 2019 · 8 comments
Assignees
@csarven

Comments

@michielbdejong
Copy link
Contributor

Since LDP officially supports JSON-LD as a 'SHOULD', it feels like the WAC spec should too, right? But when trying to write unit test for ACL docs in JSON-LD format, I ran into this problem:

 $ curl -H "Accept: application/ld+json" http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<html><head>
<title>406 Not Acceptable</title>
</head><body>
<h1>Not Acceptable</h1>
<p>An appropriate representation of the requested resource /ns/auth/acl could not be found on this server.</p>
Available variants:
<ul>
<li><a href="acl.ttl">acl.ttl</a> , type text/turtle</li>
<li><a href="acl.rdf">acl.rdf</a> , type application/rdf+xml</li>
<li><a href="acl.n3">acl.n3</a> , type text/n3</li>
</ul>
</body></html>

Should we ask the webmasters of w3.org to publish a JSON-LD representation of http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl?
@michielbdejong michielbdejong mentioned this issue May 9, 2019
Closed
@RubenVerborgh
Copy link
Contributor

@timbl Could your script be extended to do that?

@leinue
Copy link

leinue commented Oct 20, 2019

I want JSON-LD too.

@csarven csarven self-assigned this May 17, 2021
@csarven csarven mentioned this issue Jun 17, 2021
Merged
@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented Jul 7, 2021

WAC does not need to require more than one concrete RDF syntax. Only Turtle is required for interop. Requiring any additional syntax increases the complexity on the WAC-spec level. Servers implementing a protocol that supports JSON-LD (and/or other syntaxes) can do so.

Unless there is a compelling reason for WAC to support other syntaxes, I suggest to close this issue.

@elf-pavlik
Copy link
Member

I think this issue was about vocab not the representation of ACLs in given ecosystem.

@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented Jul 7, 2021

hah! oops, I've totally lazy-misread that.

Source is acl.n3 . I don't see a particular reason not to have a JSON-LD representation... will followup with Tim/Eric.

@TallTed
Copy link
Contributor

TallTed commented Jul 7, 2021

I'm confused.

To my eyes, it looks like @elf-pavlik misread the original post. I don't see a question about vocab, but about whether JSON-LD representations of ACLs could be supported -- where TTL, RDF/XML, and N3 already are. ...

I also don't see how @csarven's latest addresses a vocab question, when you're going to follow up with people about delivering a JSON-LD representation of an N3 resource ... but it does seem to be addressing the original question.

Have I lost the plot somewhere?

@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented Jul 7, 2021

@TallTed

I can see that there are two things being conflated. The title of the issue:

Can ACL docs be in JSON-LD?

and the following line caused the confusion:

Since LDP officially supports JSON-LD as a 'SHOULD', it feels like the WAC spec should too, right? But when trying to write unit test for ACL docs in JSON-LD format, I ran into this problem:

because they they have nothing to do with what follows:

curl -H "Accept: application/ld+json" http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl

Should we ask the webmasters of w3.org to publish a JSON-LD representation of http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl?

I overlooked some details in my original comment hence the reason why I thought it is about the ACL resource as opposed to the ACL ontology.

@michielbdejong ? :)

@michielbdejong
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sorry, I didn't remember the details but if you follow the link to inrupt/wac-ldp#45 (comment) and inrupt/wac-ldp@78a40a7 that gives some more info.

So while we could still ask the webmasters of w3.org to publish a JSON-LD representation of http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl, the answer to this issue is of course "yes, they can". And as long as clients don't try to retrieve http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl to get context, all is fine!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@csarven csarven

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
6 participants
@michielbdejong @csarven @RubenVerborgh @elf-pavlik @leinue @TallTed