- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:54:19 -0800
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
In my mind, the conneg bit that's needed is about adding the ability to negotiate not the profile itself but the distribution (of a dataset) that supports a preferred profile. So, if I work in a community that tends to release data conforming to a profile called astrodcat, and other people use one called fitsprof, I can build my data harvester to negotiate for distributions that conform to astrodcat rather than fitsprof. People who publish astro data could make both astrodcat and fitsprof distributions of the data available. Content negotiation already has the capability to handle the case of requesting a copy of astrodcat itself as astrodcat.rdf vs astrodcat.xml vs astrodcat.json. -Annette On 12/6/17 10:45 AM, mail@makxdekkers.com wrote: > Karen, > >> Not all access to APs will be through content negotiation, AFAIK, so we have to consider >> other access avenues, such as a document at is located on a web site, profiles in wikis, etc. > The expressions of the profile might be at > > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.rdf > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.xml > http://example.org/profiles/xyz/profile.json > > So it would be possible to access them without content negotiation. But I guess, we need to consider content negotiation because our deliverable is called "Content Negotiation by Application Profile" > >> If there is a "concept" AP it needs to be something that can be represented, >> thus is not entirely abstract. > In my mind, it *is* "abstract" in the same sense that FRBR Work is an abstract entity. > > Makx. > > -- Annette Greiner NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2017 19:55:41 UTC