Re: [dxwg] [conneg] IETF submission must not include query param pattern requirements

@nicholascar scripsit:
> The deliverable from this group is about profile guidance - a Best Practice doc. Then there are likely to be multiple implementations, one in HTTP, one using an API with QSAs and other things and an Ontology- ProfileDesc. They should be equivalent and adhere to the BP doc.

According to our charter the group has three rec-track deliverables:
* **DCAT++**
* **Guidance on publishing application profiles of vocabularies** (A definition of what is meant by an application profile and an explanation of one or more methods for publishing and sharing them).
* **Content Negotiation by Application Profile** (An explanation of how to implement the expected RFC and suitable fallback mechanisms as discussed at the SDSVoc workshop)

(So it's not only profile guidance...)

@azaroth42 scripsit:
> I don't think that is possible, unfortunately. A non-rec-track best practice note cannot create new HTTP headers such as Accept-Profile. 

So since the *content-negotiation-by-application-profile* deilverable is on rec track we should be fine. Best practice documents can be on rec track too, as shown by the [Data on the Web BP]( [Spatial Data on the Web BP]( was on rec track, too, but we didn't manage to get it ready before the WG ended...

> If the group does not consider the registration of the Accept-Profile header with IETF to be in scope, then it should consider rechartering as it cannot fulfill its deliverables, as there won't be an RFC to reference.

I'm probably biased, but I consider the registration to be in scope...

GitHub Notification of comment by larsgsvensson
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2018 10:21:14 UTC