|updated timeline||timeline approved|
|proposed ARK spec cleanup||no objections to broad cleanup of spec, even if they generate noisy diffs|
ongoing ?info inflection proposal discussion
KH: article seems to still endorse RDF a bit; there's value in aligning with DataCite
In follow-up email from KH:
Reflecting on the discussion, I think it may have gotten lost that when we were discussing JSON-LD a few weeks ago, I believe it was imagined as part of a series of recommendations, not as requirement. If that is still the case, then perhaps it’s not necessary to add a meeting to discuss the pros and cons of linked data further, since implementation would be looser and JSON-LD would be encouraged but not required. I think it should be perfectly fine for Portico to produce JSON-LD and BNF to produce XML.
I’m wondering if the guidelines might go something along these lines:
- At minimum, ?info must resolve to a human readable landing page, and should provide a gateway to machine-readable metadata
- It is strongly recommended that meta tags with [something like] DC are implemented (since they are simple html, and all orgs should be able to do something with those).
- Secondary to this, we encourage but don’t require JSON-LD with schema.org (and/or DC) on the ?info page (in alignment with the JDDCP recommendations in the Scientific Data article).
- Finally, regardless of whether JSON-LD is implemented, we encourage organizations to use whatever data format[s] is appropriate in their context as the machine-readable data version of ?info, but encourage that:
- Organizations include DC metadata in this where possible
- Organizations utilize either content negotiation or add “&format=[json|xml|etc]” property to deal with alternative formats.
This is just a rough example, but maybe something like this approach might work to give a little structure but plenty of flexibility.
- make sure ?info leaves options for people, but steers them towards json
- add Bertrand to subgroup