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

Annette,

On Wednesday, November 14, 2018 9:28 PM, Annette Greiner [mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov] scripsit:

> Riccardo is correct here. I am okay with marking the issue in the draft as an issue,
> not resolving it before FPWD. I do feel it worth pointing out that this is not a new
> issue. I filed it in github more than a week ago. But I'm willing to let this go in the
> interest of getting the document out there.
> If we do insert a note, however, the issue should be characterized correctly. It is not
> in my mind an issue of defining what content negotiation is. It is an issue about
> whether it is advisable to offer a scheme for conducting content negotiation in
> query strings.

Can you provide some text for that note? Then we would be sure that we capture your intent correctly.

Best,

Lars

> 
> On 11/14/18 7:34 AM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote:
> 
> +1 to Lars's proposal,
>  in my opinion, it is perfectly ok to have this kind of issues open for an
> FPWD,  provided that we make clear we are still discussing these aspects by keeping
> track of Annette's issues in GitHub and explicitly mentioning them in the document,
>  which is what was suggested also by Annette's sentence:
> "We have two outstanding substantial issues with the conneg doc that I would like
> to see at least marked prominently"
> 
> Riccardo
> 
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 11:31, Svensson, Lars <mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de>
> wrote:
> 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:mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:53 AM
> To: Simon Cox (E&M, Kensington) mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au
> Cc: Annette Greiner <mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>; pedro winstley
> <mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>; Dataset Exchange Working Group
> <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, <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:
> Thanks for clarification Annette. Indeed, I had not picked up the distinction.
> 
> From: Annette Greiner [mailto:mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov]
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 15:24
> To: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>;
> mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com; 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, mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
> ➢  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 mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com; 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 <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
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> http://www.efa-project.org, and is believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Riccardo Albertoni
> Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico Magenes"
> Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
> via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA
> tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660
> e-mail: mailto:Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it
> Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni

> www: http://www.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni

> https://w3id.org/people/ralbertoni/

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> --
> Annette Greiner
> NERSC Data and Analytics Services
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2018 20:54:18 UTC