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

I agree with Nick - let's make this issue prominent in the FPWD
document, making it clear that this might not be appropriate as a
normative part of the document. It would be ideal to provide some
possible options for the section (change to non-normative, make into a
note or appendix... ?) so that readers have an idea of potential
dispositions, which might help them comment.

kc

On 11/14/18 5:15 AM, Car, Nicholas (L&W, Dutton Park) wrote:
> I support putting this into an Issue. I’m all for discussing it but we
> can’t put off FPWD I think. The meeting this morning (for me) voted this
> way.
> 
>  
> 
> Nick
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 14 November 2018 8:30 PM
> *To:* public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
> *Cc:* Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
> *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]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:53 AM
> *To:* Simon Cox (E&M, Kensington) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au
> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>
> *Cc:* Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov <mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>>;
> pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com
> <mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>>; Dataset Exchange Working Group
> <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org <mailto: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
> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> wrote:
> 
>     Thanks for clarification Annette. Indeed, I had not picked up the
>     distinction.
> 
>      
> 
>     *From:*Annette Greiner [mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov
>     <mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 15:24
>     *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au
>     <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>; pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com
>     <mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>; public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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]
>         *Sent:* Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 13:36
>         *To:* pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>
>         <mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>; public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
>         <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> 
>      
> 

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234 (Signal)
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2018 20:06:33 UTC