- From: Ruben Verborgh <Ruben.Verborgh@UGent.be>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:56:05 +0000
- To: "public-dxwg-wg@w3.org" <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
- CC: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>, Herbert Van de Sompel <hvdsomp@gmail.com>
Dear all, Given the other discussions on profiles, it might be good to explain on a high level how Lars, Herbert and myself see the IETF RFC regarding profile negotiation we are editing. SCOPE For the RFC, a profile is a set of structural and/or semantic constraints that can be imposed on a document. It provides extra assumptions/interpretations that a recipient is allowed to make. A document can conform to one or multiple profiles. IDENTIFICATION A profile will be identified by an IRI. This IRI can be dereferenceable, so something meaningful is returned when clients follow that IRI. We do not specify what is returned in general, but can do so for specific cases within this working group. NEGOTIATION On a high level, negotiation works as follows: – A client indicates the profiles it is compatible with by using their IRIs. – A server aims to return a response that maximally uses these preferences, indicating which profiles the response conforms to. As you can see, this mechanism is very generic. This also means it is compatible with any more specific profile, for instance, such as a DCAT application profile (whatever this might become). However, at the same time, we see no reason to tie profile negotiation specifically to DCAT. In fact, tying it to DCAT would reduce the number of applicable use cases and hence the possible uptake. Best, Ruben
Received on Monday, 19 June 2017 17:56:40 UTC