W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > December 2017

Re: Conneg definition was: Re: Start of profiles analysis page - 2nd reply

From: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 13:32:53 +1300
Message-ID: <CACfF9LzgzNiH3_kjBzJke2tfEYYHbHEiBxqVxs+ZQFosMV5pDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
Cc: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Negotiation of a distribution (selecting a distribution given a dcat
dataset and profile identifiers,  implies a some form of data access api
supported by dcat.. thats a long stretch compared to exposing profile
identifiers for distributions in dcat, and allowing negotiation for a
specific distribution which supports multiple profiles.


Negotiation mechanisms consistent with these identifiers could be driven by
dcat or by the distribution endpoints.

An api to interact with Dcat metadata graphs could be defined of course, if
we felt it was critical, and we could get two independent implementations.
.. but should be a new deliverable.

Rob





On 9 Dec 2017 08:42, "Annette Greiner" <amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote:

> Oh, maybe I misunderstood. Is the DCAT-AP for Europe a true parent of
> these other DCAT-AP-Xs? I was thinking of the (nonexistent) DCAT-AP as a
> general parent of DCAT-AP for Europe as well the others. That is what I was
> thinking doesn't exist. The namespacing here is very confusing.
>
>
> On 12/8/17 8:12 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "flat". I'd say that DCAT-AP is an AP, but
>> since there's no particular "standard" or "guidance" for APs, it is
>> self-defined in terms of its mode of expression of the content of the
>> AP. Does that make sense?
>>
>> kc
>>
>> On 12/8/17 7:59 AM, Annette Greiner wrote:
>>
>>> Except that there is no such thing as a profile called DCAT-AP, right?
>>> The space is still flat.
>>> -Annette
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Dec 8, 2017, at 3:42 AM, <Peter.Winstanley@gov.scot>
>>>> <Peter.Winstanley@gov.scot> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Karen - the data.  And yes, inheritance too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>>>> Sent: 08 December 2017 11:21
>>>> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Conneg definition was: Re: Start of profiles analysis page
>>>> - 2nd reply
>>>>
>>>> Peter, are you referring to the data that is coded using that AP, or the
>>>> AP itself? As far as I know, if you want the data coded in DCAT-AP but
>>>> not DCAT-AP-IT the site providing the data would need to be able to
>>>> create the DCAT-AP-only dataset. If they cannot, then you could accept
>>>> DCAT-AP-IT and perform the limiting to DCAT-AP at your end. (This also
>>>> brings up the notion of cascading/inheriting in APs, another sticky
>>>> topic on our plate.)
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>>
>>>> On 12/8/17 2:52 AM, Peter.Winstanley@gov.scot wrote:
>>>>> So in a DCAT-AP context we are getting national catalogues with
>>>>> refinements on the core DCAT-AP.  AFAIK there is a DCAT-AP-IT for italy,
>>>>> and a DCAT-AP-SK for Slovakia.  The convention seems to be developing in
>>>>> this way using a 2char country code.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I want to merge then perhaps I just want the DCAT-AP version
>>>>> without any country-specific additions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would this be an appropriate and testable use case for this?
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>>>>> Sent: 08 December 2017 10:38
>>>>> To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
>>>>> Subject: Conneg definition was: Re: Start of profiles analysis page -
>>>>> 2nd reply
>>>>>
>>>>> Annette, thanks for the reality check. And as Ruben says, the main aim
>>>>> is to access data that matches one or more application profiles.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/8/17 1:24 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Annette,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my mind, the conneg bit that's needed is about adding the ability
>>>>>>> to negotiate not the profile itself but the distribution (of a dataset)
>>>>>>> that supports a preferred profile.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only requirement seems to be:
>>>>>
>>>>> 6.8.3 Profile negotiation
>>>>> Create a way to negotiate choice of profile between clients and servers
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps that needs to be more specific so that it is clearly about
>>>>> choosing data that is consistent with a given application profile.
>>>>>
>>>>> kc
>>>>>
>>>>> The second is our main aim,
>>>>>> but conneg clearly also makes sense for the profile itself
>>>>>> if that is available in multiple representations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Content negotiation already has the capability to handle the case of
>>>>>>> requesting a copy of astrodcat itself as astrodcat.rdf vs astrodcat.xml vs
>>>>>>> astrodcat.json.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, it's this mechanism I propose to reuse
>>>>>> (but no need to mandate that).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ruben
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
>>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>>> service.
>>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> ************************************************************
>>>> *******************************************************************
>>>> This email has been received from an external party and has been swept
>>>> for the presence of computer viruses.
>>>> ************************************************************
>>>> *******************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **********************************************************************
>>>> This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) is
>>>> intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). Unauthorised use,
>>>> disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of any part of this e-mail is
>>>> not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient please destroy the
>>>> email, remove any copies from your system and inform the sender immediately
>>>> by return.
>>>>
>>>> Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or
>>>> recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system and for
>>>> other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained within this e-mail
>>>> may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Government.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tha am post-d seo (agus faidhle neo ceanglan còmhla ris) dhan neach neo
>>>> luchd-ainmichte a-mhàin. Chan eil e ceadaichte a chleachdadh ann an dòigh
>>>> sam bith, a’ toirt a-steach còraichean, foillseachadh neo sgaoileadh, gun
>>>> chead. Ma ’s e is gun d’fhuair sibh seo gun fhiosd’, bu choir cur às dhan
>>>> phost-d agus lethbhreac sam bith air an t-siostam agaibh agus fios a
>>>> leigeil chun neach a sgaoil am post-d gun dàil.
>>>>
>>>> Dh’fhaodadh gum bi teachdaireachd sam bith bho Riaghaltas na h-Alba air
>>>> a chlàradh neo air a sgrùdadh airson dearbhadh gu bheil an siostam ag obair
>>>> gu h-èifeachdach neo airson adhbhar laghail eile. Dh’fhaodadh nach  eil
>>>> beachdan anns a’ phost-d seo co-ionann ri beachdan Riaghaltas na h-Alba.
>>>> **********************************************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> --
> Annette Greiner
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 9 December 2017 00:33:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 April 2019 13:44:56 UTC