- From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:16:45 +0200
- To: lars.svensson@web.de
- Cc: public-dxwg-comments <public-dxwg-comments@w3.org>
Dear Lars, On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:49:12AM +0200, Lars Svensson wrote: > > I always thought that the spirit of CONNEG was to be > > liberal about may be used as a URI for content > > negotiation (e.g., even purl.org/dc/terms/), > > From a conneg point of view, the profile URI can point > to anything (including nothing, i. e. the profile URI > can return 404). This is an important point with which I enthusiastically agree. For starters, profiles URIs _will_ inevitably return 404s, increasingly over time, as resources are moved or become unavailable. > In the IETF document we say that _if_ the profile URI > is a protocol URI (http/https/ftp/sftp/...) it SHOULD The judicious use of SHOULD here looks spot-on. > A further possibility is to constrain > this further and say that the profile URI SHOULD > resolve to a profile description and that the server > SHOULD use content negotiation (by profile) to serve > the best available representation of the profile. The > client can ask for a specific profile of the profile > (e. g. a ShEx version) and then the server would return > a ShEx document that can be used for validation. The first sentence refers to a "representation" of the profile. Do I correctly understand you to mean: "the client can ask for a specific _representation_ of the profile" (instead of "profile") and "a ShEx _representation_" (instead of "version")? Tom -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Friday, 23 August 2019 08:17:15 UTC