- From: Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 14:28:06 -0600
- To: Riccardo Albertoni <albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it>, "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
- Cc: Dataset Exchange Working Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <b7fd273b-caea-b75b-6a69-3367d13b7336@lbl.gov>
Riccardo is correct here. I am okay with marking the issue in the draft as an issue, not resolving it before FPWD. I do feel it worth pointing out that this is not a new issue. I filed it in github more than a week ago. But I'm willing to let this go in the interest of getting the document out there. If we do insert a note, however, the issue should be characterized correctly. It is not in my mind an issue of defining what content negotiation is. It is an issue about whether it is advisable to offer a scheme for conducting content negotiation in query strings. -Annette On 11/14/18 7:34 AM, Riccardo Albertoni wrote: > > +1 to Lars's proposal, > in my opinion, it is perfectly ok to have this kind of issues open > for an FPWD, provided that we make clear we are still discussing > these aspects by keeping track of Annette's issues in GitHub and > explicitly mentioning them in the document, > which is what was suggested also by Annette's sentence: > "We have two outstanding substantial issues with the conneg doc that I > would like to see at least marked prominently" > > Riccardo > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 11:31, Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de > <mailto:L.Svensson@dnb.de>> wrote: > > All, > > This might be overly formal, but as an editor I need to be sure > what is the right way to go. > > In yesterday’s plenary meeting it was agreed that “Prof Neg goes > to FPWD with proviso that editors take on board comments *made by > this meeting time today*” [1] (emphasis mine). > > Annette has raised important points regarding QSA being marked as > normative and whether using QSA really is content _negotiation_ > and not only requesting specific content. This is clearly > something we’ll have to address. > > The question is if we have to have this resolved in order to go to > FPWD. Formally, we could argue that Annette’s objection was raised > too late (i. e. after the meeting was finished and the vote > completed) and that we would address this in the second PWD. OTOH > if it’s considered so important, that someone in the group objects > to the publication until the issue is resolved I think we should > take that very seriously. > > I fear that this is something that needs a few weeks of discussion > in order to reach consensus. In order to get the FPWD published > and get further comments from a wide audience, my suggestion would > be that we put Annette’s concerns in a github issue and reference > that issue prominently in the respective sections of the document. > That way we make clear that those are points we need to discuss > and that we invite to a broader discussion. At the same time we > would ensure that we get the FPWD published relatively soon. > > Would that work for you? > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2018/11/13-dxwg-minutes.html#x05 > > Best, > > Lars > > *From:*Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au > <mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:53 AM > *To:* Simon Cox (E&M, Kensington) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> > *Cc:* Annette Greiner <amgreiner@lbl.gov > <mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>>; pedro winstley > <pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com > <mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>>; Dataset Exchange Working > Group <public-dxwg-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-dxwg-wg@w3.org>> > *Subject:* Re: Regrets > > Asking for a list of options and picking one is still arguably > "negotiation" - although "mediation" might also apply. the IETF > RFC merely states > > " content negotiation > > The mechanism for selecting the appropriate representation > when servicing a request." > > It does not explicitly require support for lists of choices. > > This description > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_negotiation#Agent-driven > explicitly includes the case where a list is provided and the > client chooses - but I don't see where a specification that > defines this is referenced. > > Then there is the sense that QSA may be multi-valued - there are > no examples given, but this fits the sense of a list > > And finally there are the issues which do need an issue raised > IMHO, about use of wildcards and returning a more specific > profile given identifier of a general one. (these both occur in > MIME type conneg, you dont have to specify sub-profiles of MIME > types, but you may receive one.) > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 15:53, <Simon.Cox@csiro.au > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>> wrote: > > Thanks for clarification Annette. Indeed, I had not picked up > the distinction. > > *From:*Annette Greiner [mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov > <mailto:amgreiner@lbl.gov>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 15:24 > *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>>; pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com > <mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>; public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > <mailto:public-dxwg-wg@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: Regrets > > I'm distinguishing between negotiating for content and > requesting specific content. I've not seen negotiation handled > this way (where one indicates a list of acceptable options and > gets a response chosen by the server), though I admit I may > just not be aware of implementations. File-type suffixes allow > selection of a particular file; they are not negotiation. > Typical REST implementations provide another way to select > specific files with a URL string as well, but those are not > negotiations either. > > On 11/13/18 8:49 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote: > > ØEnabling 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> > <mailto:pedro.win.stan@googlemail.com>; > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org <mailto: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 > > -- > > Annette Greiner > > NERSC Data and Analytics Services > > Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > *E.F.A. Project* <http://www.efa-project.org>, and is believed to > be clean. > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Riccardo Albertoni > Istituto per la Matematica Applicata e Tecnologie Informatiche "Enrico > Magenes" > Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche > via de Marini 6 - 16149 GENOVA - ITALIA > tel. +39-010-6475624 - fax +39-010-6475660 > e-mail: Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it > <mailto:Riccardo.Albertoni@ge.imati.cnr.it> > Skype: callto://riccardoalbertoni/ > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/riccardoalbertoni > www: http://www.imati.cnr.it/ > <http://www.ge.imati.cnr.it/Albertoni> > https://w3id.org/people/ralbertoni/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Annette Greiner NERSC Data and Analytics Services Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2018 20:28:40 UTC