RE: A proposed Internet Draft for implementing http content negotiation by application profiles

As long as  you're surveying existing content negotiation features,
Consider RFC 2295, 2703 combined with RFC 2534. 2938.

The general idea of a media feature is something that is orthogonal
to the MIME type.


Larry
--
http://LarryMasinter.net


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Svensson, Lars [mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:07 AM
> To: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
> Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>; Ruben Verborgh
> (ruben.verborgh@ugent.be) <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>; Herbert
> Van de Sompel (hvdsomp@gmail.com) <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
> Subject: A proposed Internet Draft for implementing http content
> negotiation by application profiles
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> In many cases, there are several ways to describe a resource within the
> scope of the media type. In the case of XML documents, for instance,
> the same content can be encoded using one of several DTDs or XML
> Schemas, whereas in RDF there is a wide choice of RDF vocabularies
> (classes and properties) available to describe resources of the same
> type. In order to make implementations interoperable, it is necessary,
> not only to interchange information on the media type used to
> transport the content, but further information on the _structure_ and
> the associated _semantics_ of the content is also necessary, often
> referred to as an "application profile" or simply a "profile". This
> structural information can be encoded in schema documents, e. g. an
> XML Schema, a DTD or a RELAX NG for XML content, or a SHACL or a
> ShEx shape for RDF content (irrespective of RDF serialisation).
> 
> Currently, there is no standardised possibility for clients to specify
> which profiles it can process or for servers to specify which profile(s)
> the resources it delivers adhere to. At the SDSVoc workshop in
> Amsterdam last year, this was a topic on the agenda [1,2]. Since then,
> a small WG has been formed [3] to look at possible implementations
> and will -- if necessary -- rewrite the proposed I-D and submit it to IETF
> for standardisation.
> 
> Given the plethora of metadata vocabularies and structures alone for
> describing datasets, the concept of profile negotiation is very relevant
> for the upcoming DXWG and it is expected that the work performed in
> the DXWG and the development of the I-D will be of mutual benefit.
> The development of the I-D will be independent of the DXWG.
> However, the expectation is that the WG's Rec Track deliverable
> "Content Negotiation by Application Profile" will cite the work as the
> ideal mechanism, with other mechanisms included as fall-backs where
> the new Accept Header is not yet implemented.
> 
> [1] https://ruben.verborgh.org/articles/fine-grained-content-

> negotiation/
> [2] https://profilenegotiation.github.io/I-D-Accept--Schema/I-D-

> accept-schema
> [3] https://github.com/ProfileNegotiation

> 
> *** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ***
> --
> Dr. Lars G. Svensson
> Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
> Informationsinfrastruktur
> Adickesallee 1
> 60322 Frankfurt am Main
> Telefon: +49 69 1525-1752
> Telefax: +49 69 1525-1799
> mailto:l.svensson@dnb.de
> http://www.dnb.de

>

Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 19:58:07 UTC