RE: Regrets

Ø  Enabling multiple ways to handle content negotiation doesn't seem like a win to me, as using query strings is not a standard way of doing content negotiation otherwise, so that is a departure from current conneg standards.

Conneg using paths other than HTTP headers has been a common practice. File-type suffixes are the most obvious pattern. The Linked Data API that was developed primarily in UK government circles introduced some ‘standard’ QSA keys like _format, _view, _metadata quite a few years ago. It is true that they didn’t get adopted as a standard and I guess you could argue that this was because the idea was flawed, but it was responding to a clear need which I don’t think has gone away.

From: Annette Greiner [mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 13:36
To: pedro winstley <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>; public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Regrets


I guess I never did it explicitly, but I meant to vote +1 for publishing the prof ontology.

Sorry, but for conneg I have to vote -1 until a couple of issues have been addressed.

We have two outstanding substantial issues with the conneg doc that I would like to see at least marked prominently. One is the presentation of the QSA stuff as normative. It should not be normative. Alejandra pointed that out quite a while ago, I believe, and I agree. The conneg doc is about a standard for header-based content negotiation, and I think it is beyond our charter to give normative requirements for a QSA-based approach to conneg. I thought this was agreed by the editors, but the document still treats that section as normative.

In addition, I opened a second issue about the use of QSA to specify a second way of conducting content negotiation rather than as an example of how to enable discovery and selection of profiles by using query strings (#544).  I strongly supported a requirement for the latter, because it is necessary to enable human users to understand what is available and recognize when the data available are limited to a specific profile. Enabling multiple ways to handle content negotiation doesn't seem like a win to me, as using query strings is not a standard way of doing content negotiation otherwise, so that is a departure from current conneg standards. It may even be harmful, as it creates ambiguity as to whether content negotiation is available, since one would have to check both methods to determine that it was not available. Rather than addressing the issue of how negotiation obscures the choice of profile made behind the scenes for human users, it re-creates that problem in a new form. Finally, this additional approach is introducing new problems because it requires determination of how to handle situations where both types of negotiation are attempted.

-Annette

On 11/13/18 3:01 PM, pedro winstley wrote:
Hi Annette
Did you vote on the proposals for publication?

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018, 21:00 Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov<mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov> wrote:
Sorry, I won't be able to make today's meeting.
-Annette

Sent from my iPhone



--

Annette Greiner

NERSC Data and Analytics Services

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory