Re: high-level explanation of profile-based content negotiation

Hi,

I won't have time to come back to the naming/wording discussion on contraints in the other thread. But I want to say still here and now that I strongly support the idea of applying the mechanism to the sort of application profiles we're discussing.

Best,

Antoine

On 19/06/17 19:56, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> 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, 26 June 2017 04:30:19 UTC