I think you're right that we should identify the stakeholders here.
Which clients consume PyPI JSON?
@dstufft
Is there a User Agent report for the PyPI and the warehouse legacy JSON
views?
... https://code.activestate.com/lists/python-distutils-sig/25457/
Are there still pending metadata PEPs that would also need to be
JSONLD-ified?
On Jul 19, 2016 10:45 PM, "Nick Coghlan"
On 20 July 2016 at 01:41, Wes Turner
wrote: A view producing JSONLD.
Probably right about here:
https://github.com/pypa/warehouse/blob/master/warehouse/packaging/views.py
Then stop trying to guilt other people into implementing JSON-LD support for you, and submit a patch to implement it yourself.
Requirements:
- zero additional learning overhead for newcomers to Python packaging
Should be transparent to the average bear.
- near-zero additional maintenance overhead for tooling maintainers that don't care about the semantic web
Is it of value to link CVE reports with the package metadata?
If you can meet those requirements, then your rationale of "package dependencies are a linked graph represented as JSON, so we might as well support expressing them as JSON-LD" applies. Your best bet for that would likely be to make it an optional Warehouse feature (e.g. an alternate endpoint that adds the JSON-LD metadata), rather than a formal part of the interoperability specifications.
- Another cached view
If you find you can't make it unobtrusive and optional, then you'd be proving my point that introducing JSON-LD adds further cognitive overhead to an already complicated system for zero practical gain to the vast majority of users of that system.
There are a number of additional value propositions and use cases here: https://github.com/pypa/interoperability-peps/issues/31 When I find the time
Regards, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia