Re: Annette's objection to publishing prof-conneg as FPWD (was RE: Regrets)

My perspective:
1.  feedback is always valuable - so thanks
2. Technically it arrived after decision point where we all felt
opportunity to comment had been provided, so it shouldn't stop anything,
however...
3. If we can address concerns or flag as issues during editorial clean up
we should try to...
4. In this particular case I believe the specific concern is resolvable by
referencing more explicitly the relevant IETF RFC which clearly states that
the QSA mechanism is a valid approach to something called "negotiation",
so we can invest in explaining this better and citing the definition
5. We seem to be tripping up over optional and normative - (OGC addressed
this with separate conformance classes for options) - I think it is
normative, but its not mandatory to implement QSA, and we have work to do
on how mappings from alternative QSA schemes map to these requirements.
Maybe we put this in as an issue - but I prefer to just check with W3 staff
and adjust accordingly.

Rob







On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 22:09, <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu> wrote:

> Lars,
>
>
>
> Just a suggestion.
>
>
>
> As any decision can be revisited in any point in time, I wonder whether
> the solution could be to make the QSA section as non-normative in the FPWD,
> and then include this in the list of issues to be discussed for 2PWD.
>
>
>
> Said that, I don't know if making QSA non-normative would break anything
> else in the current spec.
>
>
>
> My two cents
>
>
>
> Andrea
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Andrea Perego, Ph.D.
>
> Scientific / Technical Project Officer
>
> European Commission DG JRC
>
> Directorate B - Growth and Innovation
>
> Unit B6 - Digital Economy
>
> Via E. Fermi, 2749 - TP 262
>
> 21027 Ispra VA, Italy
>
>
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/
>
>
>
> ----
>
> The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may
>
> not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official
>
> position of the European Commission.
>
>
>
> *From:* Svensson, Lars [mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2018 11:30 AM
> *To:* public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> *Cc:* Annette Greiner
> *Subject:* Annette's objection to publishing prof-conneg as FPWD (was RE:
> Regrets)
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> This might be overly formal, but as an editor I need to be sure what is
> the right way to go.
>
>
>
> In yesterday’s plenary meeting it was agreed that “Prof Neg goes to FPWD
> with proviso that editors take on board comments *made by this meeting time
> today*” [1] (emphasis mine).
>
>
>
> Annette has raised important points regarding QSA being marked as
> normative and whether using QSA really is content _negotiation_ and not
> only requesting specific content. This is clearly something we’ll have to
> address.
>
>
>
> The question is if we have to have this resolved in order to go to FPWD.
> Formally, we could argue that Annette’s objection was raised too late (i.
> e. after the meeting was finished and the vote completed) and that we would
> address this in the second PWD. OTOH if it’s considered so important, that
> someone in the group objects to the publication until the issue is resolved
> I think we should take that very seriously.
>
>
>
> I fear that this is something that needs a few weeks of discussion in
> order to reach consensus. In order to get the FPWD published and get
> further comments from a wide audience, my suggestion would be that we put
> Annette’s concerns in a github issue and reference that issue prominently
> in the respective sections of the document. That way we make clear that
> those are points we need to discuss and that we invite to a broader
> discussion. At the same time we would ensure that we get the FPWD published
> relatively soon.
>
>
>
> Would that work for you?
>
>
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2018/11/13-dxwg-minutes.html#x05
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Lars
>
>
>
> *From:* Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au
> <rob@metalinkage.com.au>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:53 AM
> *To:* Simon Cox (E&M, Kensington) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> *Cc:* Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>; pedro winstley <
> pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>; Dataset Exchange Working Group <
> public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Regrets
>
>
>
> Asking for a list of options and picking one is still arguably
> "negotiation" - although "mediation" might also apply. the IETF RFC merely
> states
>
>
>
> " content negotiation
>
>      The mechanism for selecting the appropriate representation when
> servicing a request."
>
>
>
> It does not explicitly require support for lists of choices.
>
>
>
> This description
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_negotiation#Agent-driven explicitly
> includes the case where a list is provided and the client chooses - but I
> don't see where a specification that defines this is referenced.
>
>
>
> Then there is the sense that QSA may be multi-valued - there are no
> examples given, but this fits the sense of a list
>
>
>
> And finally there are the issues which do need an issue raised IMHO,
> about use of wildcards and returning a more specific profile given
> identifier of a general one. (these both occur in MIME type conneg, you
> dont have to specify sub-profiles of MIME types, but you may receive one.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 15:53, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
>
> Thanks for clarification Annette. Indeed, I had not picked up the
> distinction.
>
>
>
> *From:* Annette Greiner [mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 15:24
> *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>;
> pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com; public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Regrets
>
>
>
> I'm distinguishing between negotiating for content and requesting specific
> content. I've not seen negotiation handled this way (where one indicates a
> list of acceptable options and gets a response chosen by the server),
> though I admit I may just not be aware of implementations. File-type
> suffixes allow selection of a particular file; they are not negotiation.
> Typical REST implementations provide another way to select specific files
> with a URL string as well, but those are not negotiations either.
>
>
>
> On 11/13/18 8:49 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> Ø  Enabling multiple ways to handle content negotiation doesn't seem like
> a win to me, as using query strings is not a standard way of doing content
> negotiation otherwise, so that is a departure from current conneg standards.
>
>
>
> Conneg using paths other than HTTP headers has been a common practice.
> File-type suffixes are the most obvious pattern. The Linked Data API that
> was developed primarily in UK government circles introduced some ‘standard’
> QSA keys like _format, _view, _metadata quite a few years ago. It is true
> that they didn’t get adopted as a standard and I guess you could argue that
> this was because the idea was flawed, but it was responding to a clear need
> which I don’t think has gone away.
>
>
>
> *From:* Annette Greiner [mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov <amgreiner@lbl.gov>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 13:36
> *To:* pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>
> <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>; public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Regrets
>
>
>
> I guess I never did it explicitly, but I meant to vote +1 for publishing
> the prof ontology.
>
> Sorry, but for conneg I have to vote -1 until a couple of issues have been
> addressed.
>
> We have two outstanding substantial issues with the conneg doc that I
> would like to see at least marked prominently. One is the presentation of
> the QSA stuff as normative. It should not be normative. Alejandra pointed
> that out quite a while ago, I believe, and I agree. The conneg doc is about
> a standard for header-based content negotiation, and I think it is beyond
> our charter to give normative requirements for a QSA-based approach to
> conneg. I thought this was agreed by the editors, but the document still
> treats that section as normative.
>
> In addition, I opened a second issue about the use of QSA to specify a
> second way of conducting content negotiation rather than as an example of
> how to enable discovery and selection of profiles by using query strings
> (#544).  I strongly supported a requirement for the latter, because it is
> necessary to enable human users to understand what is available and
> recognize when the data available are limited to a specific profile.
> Enabling multiple ways to handle content negotiation doesn't seem like a
> win to me, as using query strings is not a standard way of doing content
> negotiation otherwise, so that is a departure from current conneg
> standards. It may even be harmful, as it creates ambiguity as to whether
> content negotiation is available, since one would have to check both
> methods to determine that it was not available. Rather than addressing the
> issue of how negotiation obscures the choice of profile made behind the
> scenes for human users, it re-creates that problem in a new form. Finally,
> this additional approach is introducing new problems because it requires
> determination of how to handle situations where both types of negotiation
> are attempted.
>
> -Annette
>
>
>
> On 11/13/18 3:01 PM, pedro winstley wrote:
>
> Hi Annette
>
> Did you vote on the proposals for publication?
>
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 21:00 Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov wrote:
>
> Sorry, I won't be able to make today's meeting.
> -Annette
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> --
>
> Annette Greiner
>
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Annette Greiner
>
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
>
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
>
>
>
>