W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > June 2018

Re: [dxwg] Profile Composition and Languages

From: Nicholas Car via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 00:55:58 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-399803389-1529888157-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
@kcoyle I'm keen to improve the documentation around profileDesc, including further detailing Use Cases for many reasons, one of which is to increase this group's understanding of it and thus the groups engagement with it.

However, can we do a status check before I do that please? This is a long-running thread (first posts back in March) and much has been done in the profiling space in this group since.

Can I please check these assumptions:

* **DXWG is working to produce a profiling *guidance* output**
  * this is not system or technology or even protocol specific
  * this will act as a Best Practice guide to assist with the production of profiles
  * it will include definitions of profiles, standards etc.
  * the profileneg group within DXWG is currently considering which requirements for profileneg are in/out of scope and putting recommendations to the DXWG plenary for voting
* **DXWG members are working on, and will likely produce as WG outputs, several system / protocol-specific methods to implement profile negotiation**
  * we have proposed profileneg at the HTTP level, via metadata (profileDesc or other modelling), and via HTTP API - something that looks like the Linked Data Platform API (the *Alternates View* approach)
  * the profileneg group is keen to ensure that any system / protocol specific implementations map to one another, as much as implementations allow, and all adhere to the guidance document

We have a growing list of profiling requirements confirmed as in scope and use cases, like [#239](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/239) that describe the motivation for particular approaches. We also have well discussed issues such as [profileDesc and the Guidance document](https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/242) that indicate great engagement with profileDesc in particular and in profile guidance and implementations of profileneg in general.

So what then is missing? Do we perhaps need to better indicate which parts of the things we are working on (guidance doc, specific implementations) have Use Cases and Requirements clearly detailed?

I gather you think there is a Use Case or two for profileDesc missing? We have 239 for the *Alternates View* approach but do you think we are missing such for profileDesc?



-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/162#issuecomment-399803389 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 25 June 2018 00:56:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 October 2019 00:15:44 UTC